Request By:
Charles McNichols # 245924
Marlene Powell
Amy V. Barker
Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Taylor Payne,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) violated the Open Records Act when it refused to provide a copy of a contract between Department of Corrections (DOC) and Correct Care Solutions (CCS) upon request of inmate Charles McNichols. For the reasons stated below, this office finds that KSR properly refused to provide the requested contract pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 197.025(2).
On March 2, 2017, McNichols, an inmate at KSR, requested KSR to provide him with "the contract Kentucky Department of Corrections has signed and agreed on with Correct Care Solutions[.]" On March 3, 2017, KSR denied McNichols's request on the basis that KRS 197.025(2) prohibited release of any records to McNichols that do not contain a specific reference to him. This appeal followed.
KRS 197.025(2) provides, in part, that DOC "shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from an inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of [DOC], unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual ." (emphasis added). KRS 197.025(2) is incorporated into the Open Records Act by operation of KRS 61.878(1)(l). As KSR argues, and what seems apparent from the nature of document sought, the contract between DOC and CCS does not contain a specific reference to McNichols.
McNichols does not dispute that he is not specifically referenced in the contract. Rather, McNichols argues on appeal that because the contract between DOC and CCS stipulates for specific medical treatment of inmates, when CCS denies him appropriate medical treatment, the contract between DOC and CCS "concerns [him] directly" and application of KRS 197.025(2) imposes hardship on him. However, as this office has previously determined, simply because a document may be relevant to or pertain to an inmate, if the record does not contain a specific reference to the inmate, the record may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to KRS 197.025(2). See 04-ORD-248. Furthermore, irrespective of the hardship McNichols feels this application of KRS 197.025(2) may impose on him, the clear and plain language of the statute controls. See id. Accordingly, DOC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying McNichols's request.
Either party may appeal this decision may appeal by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court per 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.