Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act in denying James Lang's March 30, 2015, request for "a general index of LMDC's departmental polic[ies] and an organizational chart of the LMDC and CCS Inc. 'chain of command.'" LMDC relied on KRS 197.025(2) 1 in denying Mr. Lang's request, referencing the language in that statute which authorizes the Department of Corrections to deny a request from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility "unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual." Based on the analysis found in 03-ORD-073 and 03-ORD-074, we affirm LMDC's denial of Mr. Lang's request. 2 These open records decisions are attached and their analysis is adopted in full.
At page 3 of 03-ORD-073 this office addressed an inmate's request for a memorandum stating that inmates with hepatitis could not work on outside details. We observed:
[KRS 197.025(2)] previously authorized correctional facilities to withhold records from an inmate unless the records "pertain [ed] to that [inmate] ." In January 2001, the Fayette Circuit Court issued a decision construing KRS 197.025(2) to require the Department of Corrections to furnish an inmate afflicted with Hepatitis C with a copy of policies concerning the treatment plan for said disease. The court reasoned:
Lang v. Sapp , 00-CI-03326 (Fayette Circuit Court, 8th Div., January 24, 2001). The circuit court's denial of the inmate's motion to award costs was subsequently appealed, and in a published decision the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. Lang v. Sapp, Ky. App., 71 S.W.3d 133 (2002).
The language of KRS 197.025(2) has since been narrowed to require that the records requested by the inmate "contain a specificreference to the [requesting inmate] ." (Emphasis added.) The net effect of this amendment has been to further curtail the inmate's right of access to records maintained by the Department of Corrections and correctional facilities . . . . 03-ORD-007. We find that under no construction of KRS 197.025(2), as amended, can it be said that the requested memorandum "contain[s] a specific reference to [the requesting inmate] ." Accordingly, we find that [the agency] properly denied his request for a copy of the memorandum outlining changes in work programs for inmates diagnosed with Hepatitis, notwithstanding the fact that [the requester] has been diagnosed with this illness, because that memorandum does not specifically reference him.
Accord, 08-ORD-077 (affirming county detention center's denial of inmate request for records that did not contain a specific reference to him).
In an open records decision issued shortly after 03-ORD-073, the Attorney General rejected the argument, advanced by an inmate in a local facility, that KRS 197.025(2) only applies to state correctional facilities. 03-ORD-074. We reasoned:
By its express terms, this provision applies to requests for records submitted by inmates "confined in a jail or any facility . . . under the jurisdiction of the department [of Corrections]." The statute provides that "the department shall not be required to comply . . ." with such requests unless the record requested specifically references the requester. Although the statute does not specifically provide that jails or facilities under the Department's jurisdiction are not required to comply with such requests, we are unwilling to construe that statute so strictly that it yields the absurd result that an inmate can obtain from a jail those records which he cannot obtain from the Department. Given the broad oversight role statutorily assigned to the Department relative to jails, and the common interest of these agencies in avoiding disclosure of records that implicate security concerns, and in stemming the swelling tide of frivolous inmate requests, we find that an interpretation of KRS 197.025(2) that does not include jails is legally unsupportable in light of the underlying purpose of KRS 197.025 taken as a whole.
03-ORD-074, p. 3, 4. With regard to the Department of Corrections' broad oversight role, at note 3 of that decision we provided the following examples:
KRS 196.030(1)(e) (vesting the Department with the duty to administer and enforce KRS Chapter 441 "relating to the development and enforcement of jail standards; training of jailers and jail personnel, and jail planning and construction"); KRS 441.055 (vesting the Department with the duty to adopt and revise jail standards relating to health and safety, fire safety, operations, recordkeeping, administration, training, treatment of prisoners, medical care, jail equipment and construction, and standards review process); and KRS 441.064 (vesting the Department with the duty to employ jail consultants, inspect jails, and notify jailers of deficiencies).
03-ORD-074, note 3; accord, 08-ORD-077 (quoting 03-ORD-074, p. 4, for the proposition that "an interpretation of KRS 197.025(2) that does not include jails is legally unsupportable in light of the underlying purpose of KRS 197.025 as a whole").
With respect to the open records issues presented to us in this appeal, we find no error in LMDC's denial of Mr. Lang's appeal. Either party may appeal this decision 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.
Footnotes
Footnotes