Free-dom of the Press-- As Long As You're Not the Ludington Torch

[XLFD]

Based on a suggestion by Willie Smith, which seconded an idea I had at about the same time, I decided to send off a FOIA request to the City of Ludington to find out their policies on supplying information to other news agencies.  If you have been paying attention to Eve Alone's and my posts, the City Manager, John Shay, continually blocks the viewing of public information to us by quoting exorbitant, unlawful prices for inspecting public records.  These price hikes, seem to coincide with the likelihood of the records implicating the City of wrongdoing or corruption.

Anyway the request was simple, and here's the meat of the request:

"I am requesting, preferably in electronic records sent to this E-Mail address, or failing that, to personally inspect the following public records:

All FOIA requests submitted to the 'City Of Ludington' or the 'Ludington Police Department' by individuals or organizations regarding public records dealing with the recent abduction of 'Baby Kate', and the City's or LPD's corresponding 'reply' [the page(s) describing the fees owed, and the amount of material provided-- NOT the actual public records supplied to the requesters] to those requests."

 

Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to see what public records they received, but I knew we would be risking mega-charges if we asked for more.  This was sent July 17, and we got the reply Monday, within 5 business days of the request.  It had seven pages, and we weren't charged for it, as due to indigency, we have a $20 credit for each request.  Here were those pages:

 

This is the only FOIA from the Ludington Daily News reporter Jennifer Linn Hartley on a form provided for her by the LPD.  I notice there is no date provided for when this request was given to the LPD, only a date when it was released, July 15.  One can then guess it was submitted by sometime after July 8.  It duplicated part of WOOD's request (the next page), was apparently 19 pages and had no charge applied to it. 

For the record, for an FOIA I got 23 pages regarding the water tower contract the city entered into, all stuff that should be contained in one area (not unlike police records involving Sean's police record), and was charged $57 for it, with no explanation of what the charge was for.

 

This page was instructive to how real journalists do their job.  The reporter sent this right off to the LPD, on June 30, and  asked for what the LDN did and more at least ten days before them, when the story was red hot.  Note, LPD's Bronson extension by ten days (which is legal) to fulfill the request, and the notes penned in along the margins.  You will also note that the reporter's E-mail address is blacked-out for my FOIA, as John Shay routinely does for privacy protection as per the FOIA.

One must then wonder why FOIAC Shay gave this private information out for me to LDN reporter Kevin Branisceski without my prior approval, as Kevin attests to?  When one makes a FOIA request, he should not then be targetted for harassment by the public servant who feels it's too much of a bother for him to be troubled to do his job duties.

You will also note that PS, PA Paul Spaniola, gave his approval in the margins to release some approved records, but not all, due to the two stipulations he provides.

 

This simply is the FOIA reply sent to the WOOD reporter with the marginal notes relayed.  Note that the records requested are enclosed with no fees attached to them.  This is the City of Ludington's Police Department fee page which would make you think otherwise, if you are a private citizen or work for a non-approved medium:  http://www.ludington.mi.us/departments/police_department/fees.html

 

This is one sweet FOIA request by WOOD TV once again early on July 1st, requesting the police report on the abduction of Baby Kate.  It presumes the LPD will try to block certain information on FOIA exemptions, and points to legal precedence for granting free access to them, and at the bottom pleas the case for such records to be given out with fees waived as they primarily benefit the public.  Such a plea for fee-waiving has always been denied by FOIAC Shay to me.

 

The City's reply to Troy's request for the police report.  Another extension is requested, and Ms. Bronson indicates that there will be a charge.  Though it looks as if there is four days before the receipt of his request and his FAXed request, the three days between were non-business days, and Ms. Bronson can claim reception on the 5th.

 

This page was from WZZM reporter Amy Fox, and requested the 911 tape; they were TX'ed to contact the dispatch office, as that would not be part of Ludington's records.  I am surprised that Amy, like Jennifer Linn earlier, does not put a date on it, as that should be part of every written request for reference to the statutory limits of the FOIA. 

 

The last page of my FOIA reply gives a couple of reasons that some info was not released, and yet does provide a portion of the report to the second WOOD request.  No fees were requested. 

I remember requesting to see the City's public records dealing with the Jack Byers' case against him where he claimed the City violated the Open Meetings Act and the Whistleblower Act in dealing with him (and they still are, and more), as a matter of public interest and in knowing that some of the records may be exempt by attorney-client privilege.   

I was originally quoted $600 in undisclosed fees in my original reply; I then requested an accounting of these costs, which he still failed to give, but reduced the price to $120, even though my request hadn't changed.  By the time I appealed it in April 2010 to the City Council, this figure remained and my attorney was finally told the rationale for the costs, which did not make any sense, as the Attorney General Opinion they pointed to ultimately went against their claim.

***************************************************

SUMMARY:  Three Grand Rapids media and one Ludington Daily News FOIA had four replies that charged each outlet zero for public records that were provided.  That is truly great-- but it leads one to question about why the City does not have a fair system for FOIA requests from the local internet media that also wants to see public records.  We have asked for a variety of public records, all for the matter of verifying the accuracy or falseness of incomplete data, and then provided the results of that research into fodder for public discourse on this Ning platform. 

As section 4, subsection three of the FOIA says:  "Fees shall be uniform and not dependent upon the identity of the requesting person."   Why hasn't John Shay ever determined for my requests that "a waiver or reduction of the fee is in the public interest because searching for or furnishing copies of the public record can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public."?  Can it be because that most of what I have been prohibitted to see, has implicated him or his friends of impropriety or showed the misuse of public funds-- just like the records I have been permitted to see?

[Lisa O'Brien]

Well , as I was scanning the FOIAC policy earlier today - it did mention 3 conditions where the fee would be waived. One of them was directed at the media. I don't think the city of Ludington considers this forum as a news source.

[XLFD]

FOIA policies vary throughout the country, and it does depend on what level of government you're dealing with.  As far as Federal agencies, news blogs are considered members of the news media, and by their law, will receive FOIA requests, within reason, free. 

The policies in New York are probably different than here in Michigan as regards State records, but these are addressed in State law, and the news media often will get the waiver if it falls within primarily benefitting the public, whatever that means, LOL. 

But each locality can follow the state law and tweak it as long as they stay within the law.  This is the policy in Ludington, as per the latest FOIA policy change: 

 

This is the only mention of waiver in local policy.  News media are not mentioned, although my case, indigency, is.  Why can't I or my allies get an indigency break?  The answer is that John Shay arbitrarily decides not to give it, even though we ask for this stuff to disseminate it for the public's consumption.  Here's the full local FOIA Policy:

 

[Willy]

XLFD, good job on this topic. My question would be why does the news media get a break on fees but the citizenry who pays [ with tax dollars ] for the salaries, supplies, upkeep and maintenance of equipment and buildings used to aquire that information, have to pay thru the nose for that same information given freely to the news media. Something is not quite right here.

[XLFD]

Great point; why extend such a benefit to National or regional news outlets, when the people who are looking to look at the same data and put forth that information out to the local public itself for debate, is constantly quoted unreasonable, unlawful fees.  

In Ludington's rework of their FOIA policy, the City Attorney allowed the City Manager/FOIAC to arbitrarily decide who to charge, with the may appellation.  Yet they never do declare that news media have any special privileges or waivers, only indigent or government entities/agencies. 

It potentially leads to claims of discrimination by people like me who just want answers to questions the City's discrete policies (and expenses) bring up.