23-ORD-340
December 18, 2023
In re: Michael A. Howard/Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
Summary: The Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“the
Complex”) did not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it
partially denied a request for records that failed to describe the public
records to be inspected.
Open Records Decision
Michael A. Howard (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex for copies
of records containing two subparts.1 The second subpart of the Appellant’s request
sought “information [including the name and address] of the health care insurance”
that is used at the Complex. In a timely response, the Complex denied the second
subpart of the Appellant’s request because it “is not required to honor a request for
information” under KRS 61.872(1) and (3). This appeal followed.
The Act does not require public agencies to answer questions or provide
information. Rather, the Act requires a public agency to make public records
available for inspection. KRS 61.872; Dep’t of Revenue v. Eifler, 436 S.W.3d 530, 534
(Ky. App. 2013) (“The ORA does not dictate that public agencies must gather and
supply information not regularly kept as part of its records.”); see also 21-ORD-166
(holding an agency does not violate the Act when it denies a request for information).
1
The first subpart of the Appellant’s request sought his “individual account transactions from 10-
15-2023 until present.” The Complex timely granted the first subpart of the Appellant’s request and
provided two pages of responsive records. As a result, any dispute relating to the first subpart of the
Appellant’s request is moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.Here, the Appellant requested information, including the name and address of
the health insurance company the Complex uses. It is possible that the information
the Appellant requested may be contained in some public records the Complex
possesses. However, the Appellant did not specifically request or describe any public
records that he wished to inspect. As a result, the Appellant’s request failed to
“describ[e] the records to be inspected,” KRS 61.872(2)(a), and thus, is a request for
information. Accordingly, the Complex did not violate the Act when it denied the
Appellant’s request.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#534
Distributed to:
Michael A. Howard #300969
Amy V. Barker
Sara M. Pittman
Ann Smith