Comments on: Can you be charged a fee to request public records from the State?

By: Maggie Thurber

Maggie Thurber — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:44:15 +0000

thanks, arpa, for the clarification…

my concern is that ‘government’ (that generic giant) might then use such a provision to discourage public records requests…

How to balance the public’s right to know with an ‘undue burden’ to provide access is always the difficulty. And then the definition of ‘undue’ certainly raises a whole other set of concerns…

By: arpa

arpa — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:54:03 +0000

Maggie, when I said “unlimited service” I was referencing the “Special Extraction Costs” from section (d) of HB9 listed above. Basically my point being is that a distinction must be made between routine commonplace records and those requiring an extreme amount of time and manpower to fulfill. I have no objection to the number of request being made, nor am I suggesting the public be barred from the records it request. Simply that when requiring an inordinate amount of $ and time to comply with, the entire burden shouldn’t fall squarly on the requestee.

By: Maggie Thurber

Maggie Thurber — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:31:08 +0000

Actually, arpa, unlimited service is key…the ability of the public to inspect and obtain documents should have very few and only reasonable limitations relating to specific matters (like on-going investigative work, plans for public safety the publication of which would inhibit the ability to protect the public, etc….

The public agencies are allowed reasonable time to comply with large requests for documentation. But to say a person should only be able to make a limited number of public records requests, for instance, would negate the purpose behind making records public in the first place.

There are, however, provisions for ‘nuisance-type’ requests to be handled in the court system – but I don’t know of specific instances when this has occurred.

By: arpa

arpa — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:13:21 +0000

Maggie, I agree with you that we should only pay for the actual cost applied to providing the requested materials in most situations. Yes, our tax dollars pay for the service, but not an unlimited service. Or at least I certainly hope not.

By: Maggie Thurber

Maggie Thurber — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:06:59 +0000

Additionally, I think there have been some court rulings about payment – or partial payment – in advance. I don’t remember the specifics, but I do know that the public agency is supposed to provide an estimated cost of copying the requested records.

And this makes sense…if you wanted to see all emails relating to a person or issue, you’d have no way of knowing, ahead of time, how many there might be. Providing the estimate also allows a requestor to narrow the scope of their request, if they so choose.

By: Maggie Thurber

Maggie Thurber — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:04:18 +0000

Missing the point here…it’s legal to charge for the ‘actual cost’ of reproducing the records (which means either a printed copy, cd, etc.). However, courts have consistently ruled that the public agencies are NOT allowed to charge for the time an employee spends to make such copies. The reasoning being that providing access to public records is part of their job for which they’re already being paid with public funds.

The responsibility to provide the public records for inspection lies solely with the public agency and they CANNOT charge for simple inspection of records – EVER.

The interesting issue in this is that, sometimes, simple inspection of records requires the public agency to redact information that is not public. How do you do so without actually producing a copy? And then, is it legal to charge for copies that the public agency needs to produce in order to make available the viewable public record?

I’d say elected officials, public offices, legislatures and courts should err on the side of the requestor in these cases – otherwise, we’ll all find ourselves in the untenable position of having to pay simply to VIEW the public records – something that we’ve already paid for and to which we should have FREE access.

However, once viewed, we should pay only for the actual cost to reproduce the specific document or records we need.

By: Arpa

Arpa — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:47:17 +0000

Simple information, by it’s very nature, is not that which would require $1500 of copies.

By: neighborhood concerns

neighborhood concerns — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:22:29 +0000

It is rather clear from the article that the request is above and beyond the scope of what a citizen may ask for and to be compensated for the time it takes to fulfill the request and to preserve confidentiality is not out of line.

Will this affect a citizens request for some simple information, one would hope not.

By: Arpa

Arpa — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:02:42 +0000

As far as I am concerned it seems perfectly fair to charge for requested materials at cost. The suggestion that materials should be provided for free is a waste of my tax dollars.

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:28:32 +0000

I’ve paid for information requested from the Lucas County Board of Elections, it’s a nominal fee and with the way they put information on a cd, it’s well worth it.

It’s obvious in situations like this one where there is a huge amount of information being requested that a fee seems reasonable. I can however understand the concern that the fees not be to the point where the average person who needs access to that information be able to afford it. I think the actual issue could be argued on both sides, but it does appear that there is a process in place to charge fees.

While I’m clearly not a lawyer the definition that applies to “special extraction” might include the redaction process which does take time.