Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;Gordon Slone,Assistant Attorney General
Summary : Department of Corrections did not violate the Open Records Act by refusing to provide a record that did not contain a specific reference to the requesting inmate pursuant to KRS 197.025(2).
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Department of Corrections ("DOC") violated the Open Records Act in its disposition of a request from an inmate for a copy of a contract between the Kentucky Centralized Inmate Commissary, Incorporated ("KCIC") and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC. For the reasons stated below, we affirm DOC's denial.
By request dated April 15, 2019, Jesse Sebastian ("Appellant"), an inmate at Roederer Correctional Complex, requested a copy of the contract between the Kentucky Centralized Inmate Commissary, Incorporated ("KCIC") and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC. DOC's Offender Information Services received the request on April 22, 2019. On April 29, 2019, DOC timely responded pursuant to KRS 197.025(7), which allowed DOC five calendar days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, to respond. DOC denied the request because: "KRS 197.025(2) states that the Department of Corrections is not required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in any facility unless the request is for a record that contains a specific reference to that individual. Since the public record you request does not contain a specific reference to you, the record is exempt from disclosure to you under KRS 61.878(1)(l) and KRS 197.025(2)." Appellant appealed that denial to the Attorney General by letter dated April 30, 2019. The office returned the appeal to Appellant, as it failed to include both the written request and the agency's written denial as required by KRS 61.880(2)(a). Appellant subsequently appealed the denial by correspondence dated July 8, 2019, and provided the required documents to perfect the appeal.
Oran S. McFarlan, III, attorney, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, responded on behalf of DOC by letter dated July 30, 2019. DOC asserted, "[a] contract between the DOC and a third party is not the type of record in which a reference is made to a specific inmate. KRS 197.025(2) expressly states, 'the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual.'"
As KRS 197.025(2) provides: "KRS 61.970 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding, the department shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the department, 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).1 As DOC argues, and what seems apparent from the nature of document sought, a contract between DOC and a vendor does not contain a specific reference to Appellant. This office has consistently interpreted KRS 197.025(2) as requiring a reference by name to the requesting individual. 03-ORD-150; 09-ORD-057. Accordingly, DOC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Appellant's request.
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.878(1)(l) exempts from the Open Records Act: "Public records or information the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by enactment of the General Assembly."