Request By:
James Henley, Jr., # 260990
Amy Barker
Teresa Peters
Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Gordon Slone,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of the request of Jeremy Henley to inspect certain records allegedly maintained by KSP. We conclude that KSP's rejection of Mr. Henley's request, for failure to comply with the Department of Correction's policy in submitting his open records request, as required by 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, and for failing to have Mr. Henley's signature on the request, did not violate the Act.
On January 27, 2017, Mr. Henley, an inmate currently housed at Kentucky State Prison, allegedly submitted an open records request to KSP to inspect certain records he claims are in the possession of two employees at KSP. In his ten-page letter of appeal, Mr. Henley claims that KSP subverted the Open Records Act by not explaining why it had not responded to his request. The copy of Mr. Henley's Open Records request provided for this appeal is directed to "UA 1 Jill Robertson" and "UA II Troy Belt." The request was submitted on Finance and Administration Cabinet form B-010-1. That form has a blank line for the requester to place their signature and has "Signature" below that blank line. On the form provided by Mr. Henley, there is only an "X" followed by "By and Through" on that signature line. Mr. Henley also provided a two-page letter 1 in which he appears 2 to be making a request for records he claims are in the possession of Unit Administrator Belt.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Amy V. Barker, Assistant General Counsel, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Barker advised that the records requests were not directed to, or received by, the Open Records Coordinator. Ms. Barker also explained, in regards to the lack of a signature on those requests:
KRS 61.872(2) authorizes a public agency to require a written request signed by the applicant. A review of the request[ed] documents shows that inmate Henley failed to sign his request as required by the statute. Inmate Henley has signed his name in the past for the Attorney General's Office. See letter attached as Exh. l. Given the requirements of KRS 197.025(2) that a record contain a specific reference to an inmate, the requirement of an actual signature rather than an X assists the institution in properly handling these requests. If inmate Henley wants to obtain records from the Penitentiary, he needs to sign his name to the request.
In support of the position that KSP properly rejected Mr. Henley's request because he failed to submit his request in compliance with Kentucky Department of Corrections open records policy, Ms. Barker explained:
An inmate at KSP is also required to follow Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1 and send his request to the open records coordinator. (CPP 6.1 incorporated by reference in 501 KAR 6:020 http://corrections.ky.gov/communityinfo/Policies%20and%20Procedures/Pag… ) This policy is promulgated as part of a regulation pursuant toKRS 61.876 "to prevent excessive disruption of [an agency's] essential functions" and "to insure efficient and timely action in response to application[s] for inspection.". . . The Attorney General's Office has found CPP 6.1 to be an acceptable way to manage the differences required in a correctional setting and security issues in numerous opinions. See 15-ORD-199, 12-ORD-090, 12-ORD-077, 11-ORD-047, 08-ORD-242, 08-ORD-213, 08-ORD044, 06-ORD-030, 04-ORD-004. Inmate Henley failed to comply with the requirements of the CPP by directing his request to two Unit Administrators and not to the open records coordinator. . .
Ms. Barker further explained that in the instant case, Mr. Henley had apparently submitted his request to obtain access to documents in his personal property because he has not received the access he believes is necessary to those documents. "The Open Records Act does not contemplate an inmate's personal papers that are held in storage in the institution at which he is housed. " Ms. Barker noted that the vast majority of Mr. Henley's appeal discusses issues and law that are outside the Attorney General's role of deciding appeals initiated under KRS 61.880(2) of the Open Records Act.
We find the authorities and reasoning found in 06-ORD-078 to be especially applicable to this appeal and we cite liberally from that decision without further specific reference.
As Ms. Barker explained in her response, the purpose of 501 KAR 6:020, Corrections Policy and Procedure (CPP) 6.1, requiring inmates to provide certain inmate identification information, is to enable a records custodian to confirm the identity of the inmate requesting the public records. KSP denied 3 Mr. Henley's request because it failed to include the necessary inmate identification information. Accordingly, we conclude that KSP's rejection of Mr. Henley's open records request did not violate the Open Records Act. 04-ORD-004.
Moreover, this office has recognized that the Department of Corrections is vested with broad discretion in matters related to the safety, security, and operation of its institutions. See 94-ORD-40. Pursuant to KRS 197.025(1) 4 and KRS 197.025(4) 5, inmates are required to submit open records requests by first class regular mail or institutional mail to the Open Records Coordinator "so that prison authorities can maintain order and security in the institutional setting." In a proper exercise of its discretion, the Department adopted 501 KAR 6:020, CPP 6.1.VI.B.2., requiring an inmate to forward his request by institutional mail to the Open Records Coordinator, for the legitimate purpose of maintaining order and security at institutions such as KSP. Our office has consistently recognized that KRS 197.025(1) vests the commissioner or his designee with broad discretion in determining when a threat is posed to the safety and security of the inmates, staff and institution. 03-ORD-190, p. 5. We are not in the position to second guess the Department or to conclude that its policy requiring inmates to provide certain inmate identification information along with their open records requests was an abuse of this discretion. In short, the actions of KSP relative to Mr. Henley's request did not violate the Open Records Act. 05-ORD-228.
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 must 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