Request By:
Charon T. Anderson, # 177122
Mr. James J. Kammer
Charles E. Edwards III, Esq.
Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; James M. Herrick, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of three requests from inmate Charon T. Anderson. For the reasons stated below, we find no violation of the Act.
The three requests at issue appear in handwritten original documents attached to Ms. Anderson's appeal letter, one bearing the date August 22, 2014, and two dated September 5, 2014. The August 22 document is a request "to view the KY Administrative Code Referencen [ sic ] in order to know my rights to defend myself against violation of technical violations per Kim Morris." The September 5 requests are, respectively, for Ms. Anderson's inmate services notes and for "a copy of 501 KAR 1:040 or the KAR book." Ms. Anderson received a response only to the last of these three requests, dated September 10, 2014, in which records custodian James J. Kammer replied: "There is no document responsive to this request." Ms. Anderson initiated an appeal, which was received in this office on September 19, 2014.
On September 30, 2014, attorney Charles E. Edwards III, representing LFUCG, attested that LFUCG had no record of ever receiving the letter dated August 22 or the September 5 request for Ms. Anderson's inmate services notes. As to the request for a copy of an administrative regulation, Mr. Edwards states that Mr. Kammer's response, "though perhaps poorly worded, was meant to inform Ms. Anderson that the Division [of Community Corrections] is not the custodian of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations and, therefore, could not provide them." Additionally, Mr. Edwards cites KRS 197.025(2), which provides that an inmate is not entitled to the facility's records "unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual."
As to the August 22 request which was not received by LFUCG, Mr. Edwards adds that 197.025(2) would likewise apply to any other administrative regulation requested by Ms. Anderson. As to the September 5 request for Ms. Anderson's inmate services notes, he states that "the Division would be happy to review her inmate services notes and respond to her request accordingly" in the event it ever receives a request from her.
Although LFUCG raises the issue of KRS 197.025(2) only on appeal, we agree that under that subsection Ms. Anderson is not entitled to view records that do not contain a specific reference to her. Our consistent interpretation of this statute has been that only records mentioning the inmate by name need be provided. 05-ORD-130; 03-ORD-073; 99-ORD-157; 98-ORD-150. An administrative regulation, such as 501 KAR 1:040, would not make such a reference to an individual inmate.
As to the other purported requests, it is not clear that these requests were ever received by LFUCG. Therefore, we can find no violation of the Open Records Act in its failure to respond.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.