McAdam- '12: City Wants to Suppress Release of Information

[XLFD]

The City of Ludington, and the County of Mason, our two local governments of note have been quite successful in keeping the Joseph McAdams lawsuit out of the public spotlight for the last three years, and now that the public is actually taking a closer look at the facts behind this lawsuit, they are seeing a lot of behavior from our police and deputies that defy the rights of an individual, show a lack of training in tasers, and totally go against their duties, ethics, and Oaths of Office.  Most of the court material is in this thread McAdams Documents.

Before these documents were found using the PACER system, even before I knew what the full extent of the "McAdam's lawsuit" referred to in the City Council's agenda for it's August 27 meeting, I sent a letter to my friend, FOIA Coordinator of Ludington, John Shay, requesting information because I don't like remaining in the dark, when there's light switches not being used.

John,

Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MCLA 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq) I am requesting to receive copied electronic files to this E-mail address or failing that, to personally inspect the following public records :

1) Court-related documents (the Complaint, Summons, discovery, etc.) received by the City and/or its officials regarding the lawsuit brought against the City and/or its officials by the McAdam party (Sue?), which is slated to be a topic of discussion on Monday night in closed session.

2) Court-related documents sent to the McAdam party from the City and/or its officials/attorneys in response to that suit, and any countersuit, if applicable.

3) All communications in the City's possession regarding the dispute in question between the McAdam party and the City of Ludington occurring prior to the lawsuit being filed.

If you need any clarifications of this request, please reply expediently to this E-mail address.

If requested record(s) do not exist, please enumerate which ones do not, as per the Act.

If you determine that some of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, please detail what is being withheld and cite the exemption under FOIA.

If fees to comply with this request exceed $20, please contact me at this E-Mail address with those fees enumerated.

As provided under FOIA, I would anticipate my request being filled within five working days of receipt of this letter.

A standard form letter I have used often, differing only in what I am seeking at the time.  I chose the records so as to avoid exempt material, so that I would either get it scanned to me, or have the minor inconvenience of coming in to scan it.  I got the following:

Tom:

I have attached the City of Ludington’s response to your FOIA request. The fees associated with your request are calculated as follows (Response)

Labor to scan records = $23.07 per hour (including benefits) x 2 hours = $46.14 This would be performed by the lowest paid employee.

Labor to separate exempt from non-exempt records = $63.64 per hour (including benefits) x 2 hours = $127.28 This would be performed by me.

Total = $173.42 less $20 credit for Affidavit of Indigency = $153.42

Upon receipt of your 50% deposit in the amount of $76.71, the City will begin to compile the records. Upon receipt of the payment in full, the City will release the records to you.

John Shay

City Manager

The FOIA Coordinator must have felt somewhat strengthened by Kaye Holman's support of him, since this was the first time he charged me for "scanning" labor.  The 'separate exempt from non-exempt records' also was a surprise.  I fired back an E-mail to him and the seven members of the Ludington Rubber Stamp Club.

John,

In the records requested there are no records that should be exempt. The first two sub-requests are court documents, many of which are available through the PACER system, the third are simple communications between the McAdams and the City, all of which should have non-exempt material.

You have marked the attorney-client privilege as the only exempt material, and I am not asking for anything which should have that privilege. I am not asking for internal communications of the City or its principals with its attorney.

The court documents should have already had their exempt material treated, and even if you were to find some that weren't, I debate your choice as to being the lowest paid employee to do so, or the time it would take you to do so. If you don't get it yet, that is public extortion and is illegal in this state.

I have also asked to inspect these records, so charging me one of your inflated office worker prices $23.07 an hour to scan these documents is also against my wishes. Remember, if you want to charge labor for this service, I am more than happy to come in and do it myself.

Therefore, on re-examination, you should be inviting me to the City Hall to inspect these non-exempt documents for free. Please, adjust your response and reflect that, or consider this an appeal of your decision which violates FOIA law.

As usual, John will defer these improper costs to the Council with a recommendation to uphold his decision, and they will.  And the costs of doing such unethical suppression of information will be passed on to the electorate who will be told that I am the bad guy for making the request in the first place.  Pretty silly when you think about it, isn't it City Hallers?

[Willy]

As far as I'm concerned there should be no exempt records at the City or State level. Any and all files belong to the people not Government workers. Nothing should be exempt except at the Federal level when dealing with national security.