The True Costs of XLFD's FOIA Requests as of 2013

[XLFD]

I recently debunked another myth that the City of Ludington passes off as fact in its rationalizations of why my weekly FOIA requests are likely to bring down this great republic known as the United States of America.  In this thread, We Won pt. 3, City Attorney George V. Saylor III confirmed that we had paid for every single FOIA request that was fulfilled by our receiving or inspecting the records from the City (up to that point, late May 2012), and in that thread I asked  if we had paid for every FOIA response we had agreed to or seen, where does the several thousand dollar figure come into play that was originally submitted here as $4172.30 in the power point presentation originally prepared during September 2011, $4334.97 in the original counterclaim in November 2011, $5524.63 in March 2012, (and then later) up to $6500 according to Councilor Holman and her presentation at the City Hall in August 2012?  And why was it summarily reduced down to just over $700 when the City Attorney made his case on September 10, 2012, which swayed replacement judge Mark Wickens to award these fees in a judgment which is being appealed on several grounds.

 

 

Let's take a look at three aspects which I usually overlook when I discuss this topic on the Torch.  First, Each and every FOIA request I make does take some time to fulfill by the City.  The FOIA Coordinator needs to read the request, decide what needs to be done and estimate the costs, often contact one or two other people, they have to do a search, review the material, maybe scan or copy material, and then send it back to the FOIAC or set it aside for my inspection, the FOIAC has to create the response.  Getting it all done within five business days can probably be difficult at times. 

If the records are adequately stored and accessible, however, and the personnel have adequate clerical skills, well over 90% of the materials I ask for should be able to be fulfilled within a half hour by one to three individuals. 

Most FOIA material should already be stored electronically, and most should also have FOIA exempt materials in easy-to-redact format, or already censored; there isn't a lot that is exempt unless you're looking at police/school records.

Second, every member of a public body has a duty to make sure that their public records are available to people that request it.  If you ask a firefighter to supply you with the incident report for a fire, if you ask a DPW employee for records regarding street projects, they should direct you to put in a written response to the FOIAC, get a hold of him for you, or get it themselves for you if they can.  If you give a written request for records to any member of a public body, they have a duty to get that to their FOIAC and have a response to it within a week.

Public records belong to the public, and public workers are mere stewards of them.  As section 1 of the act says:  "all persons... are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process."

Third, there are a limited amount of fees that a public body can charge for a FOIA request, as MCL 15.234  delineates, there are only three types of fees the public body can charge (unless otherwise set by statute) for records:  1) Incremental necessary copying fees  2) Postage  3)  the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs

Therefore, if you ask to inspect records or receive scanned records via E-mail, they may only charge you for 1) copies required because exemptions are present on that record, and 2) labor costs if the labor of the employees utilized in fulfilling the request results in an " unreasonably high costs because of the nature of the request in the particular instance".

With those three standards in mind, I had made a request to John Shay to finally get to the bottom of things on how much I have actually cost the City and its taxpayers by making what he enumerates as my 174th FOIA request which was to inspect the "Payroll and wage records showing any additional hours of employment, overtime or not, assigned to any City of Ludington official or employee for the expressly annotated pursuit of fulfilling any of my FOIA requests (including Toni Swiger's FOIA requests as well) since we have begun making such requests."

His answer was a simple one, here is the link.pdf, which simplifies to this:

So this clarifies what some of you have asked about in the past something I was pretty sure of in my own dealings with the Shayster, namely, that there has been no actual expense to the City coffers due to the labor of City workers in fulfilling FOIA requests that they haven't been able to do while performing their other duties in the course of the week!

If I insist on not being mailed the records, or having to look at redundant copies of non-exempt public records printed because the City Manager wants to add an unnecessary expense (and violating the act by failing to utilize the most economical means available), the only thing he can point to that I owe the City is for copies of records I have received or inspected that needed redaction-- the only allowable fee left.  But none of this was part of the City's court presentation for fees, nor is there any redacted record from the City I have seen that hasn't been paid for, a fact which even City Attorney George V. Saylor can attest to.

The end result is that I owe the City of Ludington nothing, in fact I can list a variety of fees I have had to pay just to see relevant records that implicate the City of ethical and legal wrongdoing, in a sick form of public extortion the City Manager and his friends in City Hall allow to exist-- so I am owed much of that money back and a long overdue apology from the slanderous allegations they have put me through since 2010 regarding simply seeking information from a reluctant source that has a lot of explaining to do.  I challenge them to do so.

[Willy]

Very interesting article X that opens up a very interesting question. Can a governmental agency require fees for filling FOIA requests if the workers who gathered that information are doing exactly what they were paid to do in the first place? As I have said before the City is trying to run a side business by making a profit while fulfilling FOIA requests. It is in my opinion "extortion" to profit from disseminating public information to the public.

[XLFD]

People around this time are in the process of gathering their own records in preparation to prepare their tax returns.  It can take an organized tax wonk just a couple hours to gather a few records and prepare a few forms for the state and feds.  Or days for a disorganized person who uses a long form.  Many people can spend hundreds of dollars for tax preparers, and small businesses may need to pay accountants each week to conform to all the paperwork required by the government.  But can we charge them for the inconvenience of preparing our personal data for them to look at, just so they can perhaps take more of our property and rights away? 

The least these government clowns can do is keep good, complete records and make it available on demand, without attacking those who have the chutzpah to do so.  The people paid money in to get those records made, they deserve to see the end product.