This falls
under The More You Know category as
there have been substantial changes made recently on how the Village responds to
(and bills for) public records requests.
As one who
has made many such requests over the years for public records, I wanted to shine
some light on this topic for those who are unaware and to illustrate what has
now become questionable and seemingly biased tactics used by our Administration.
An
Overview of the FOIA:
Since
1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right
to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as
the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Please note that
the FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access
to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government
agencies. Link
Here: https://youtu.be/j5b9sSBiRTQ
That said the material changes made
to our common practice are so deviated from the norm that I find it is worth a
further examination.
Below are two examples of recent
public records request. The names of the parties involved will be omitted, but
the scope of work and timeframes will be shown.
Example #1
This public
records request was made on Friday 11/2/2018 with an expedited request “being it is time sensitive” for delivery
by Monday/Tuesday of the follow week.
SCOPE OF REQUEST: Dates 9/13/18-
11/2/18
·
All
correspondence between resident X and the manager
·
All
correspondence between residents X and Y and the manager
·
All
correspondence between residents X and Y and every commissioner
·
All
correspondence between residents X and Y and the police department
·
All
correspondence between residents X and Y and the village attorney
The invoice
generated from Next Level Systems (I.T. vendor) dated 11/7/18 for this search
was $200.00. It was fulfilled in 7 days (request date to Village invoice date)
The invoice
generated by the Village clerk to this resident (example #1) is
dated 11/09/18. (As a point of reference, this invoice shows that it was
received on 11/13/18 but was not stamped as being paid.
This requires further examination as if there was proof of payment or not)
Re:
Public Records Request dated November 02, 2018
Staff
research- ½ hr. - $14.02
No
charge for the first 15 minutes of staff time- $6.01
Copies-
211 pages @ $0.15 ea. - $31.65
Total-
$37.66
Notice that
the $200.00 (I.T. research fee) charged to the Village from NLS is not part of
the invoice. Why not?
Example #2
This public
records request was made on Thursday February 14, 2019.
SCOPE OF REQUEST: Dates February 14th 2018- February 14th 2019
SCOPE OF REQUEST: Dates February 14th 2018- February 14th 2019
From
resident Z: “Pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 119 I am requesting that Mayor
Tracy Truppman produce all phone logs and Village emails spanning the last 1
year period. Today is 2/14/2019 I believe that by 3/1/2019 you should have
sufficient time to fill this request.”
This request
was then amended on 2/15/19 to the following:
·
All
of the Mayors Personal Cell Phone Logs and TEXT Messages that are in connection
with Village Business
·
All
of the Mayors Village emails
·
All
of Commissioner Betsy Wise Phone Logs, emails and Text Messages pertaining to
Village Business commencing Nov 6th 7PM to Date
·
All
the Village Managers Text, phone log and emails pertaining to Village business
for a one year period
Communication
to the resident (with invoice) from the Village clerk was on 3/18/19- (31 days
later- note that the previous request was expedited and fulfilled in 1 week)
Re:
Public Records Request dated February 14, 2019
Staff
research – 250 hours- $ 6,190.00
No
charge for first 15 minutes of staff time
$ 6.19
IT
service-
$ 350.00
Text
Messages- 233 pages $ 34.95
Copies
– 58,820 @ 0.15 ea. $ 8,823.00
Total-
$ 15,391.76
Upon
receiving this invoice resident Z inquired as to the fee, “First, I asked that
for this in PDF so no copies are necessary. Second, what staff research is
needed? The phone records and text messages are provided by the carrier to the
client at no charge all they have to do is download the invoices. Third, what
IT services are needed? ” I’ll tell you what, standby I’ll get back to you on this.”
This request
was again amended on March 15th: “Based on this ridiculous estimated
invoice and my conversation with the State Attorney’s Office, here is what I am
now requesting. Please send me an estimated cost as soon as possible as I will
need to agree and forward to State Attorney."
·
All
Text messages since 11/6/2018 related to Village business from Tracy Truppman.
·
All
Text messages since 11/6/2018 from Betsy Wise
·
All
Text new messages since11/6/2018 from Village Manager.
As of today’s
date, there has been no further communication from the Village clerk and this
records request has not been fulfilled...
I have also
been made aware of other recent resident’s records requests that have been upcharged,
delayed, ignored and/or improperly fulfilled. In my opinion, these actions
violate the very sprit of the Freedom of Information Act.
So, What Did We Learn?
First, off,
the two requests are of a different timeframe and scope so we can’t make an
apple-to-apple comparison. However, there are more disconcerting elements to uncover.
Namely,
Example #1 was
submitted from one of Tracy’s known supporters.
Example #2 was
submitted from one who has been critical of Tracy.
As a point
of record, in the past I have typically not been charged, or charged a nominal
rate for all of the public records I have requested. So you can imagine my shock at seeing this
$15K+ invoice!
According to
the FOIA guidelines, “There is usually no
charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of
duplication.” As listed above, the Village clerk charged after the first 15
minutes and offered no free pages of duplication. (Also charging the maximum
fee per page without offering the use of back pages ($0.5 as opposed to $0.15).
There was in addition a new “I.T. fee” created for resident Z’s invoice
(example #2, again not charged on example #1) and a huge disparity in staff research time and costs between the two invoices- $6,175.98.
Further,
there is no authorization in the Village Fee Schedule to charge these fees and
there are Attorney General opinions (AGO) advising against similar fees. In
looking over the contract with the I.T. company, there is no mention of any
research fees that pass through to the public either as I.T. fees are not part of the
Village Fee Schedule. It is the duty of the Village to produce records and make
them available to the public. If the
Village incurs additional fees because of the process they have set up to
retrieve records, then that is the cost of doing business to the Village
and not to be passed along to the residents.
It seems
clear that the purpose of this excessive charge on a public records invoice and
similar charges to other residents (on or after February 2019) is meant to
obstruct the public records process. At least that’s what I come up with.
Should anyone have another idea or explanation, please feel free to leave it in
the comment section below.
Standing
Watch,
Milton
Hunter
The Biscayne Parker
This report courtesy of public records access.
ReplyDeleteThe invoice invented to obstruct Resident Z's request is absurd, 250 hours staff time,
ReplyDeleteor 6.25 weeks of FT research, c'mon man!
Is the administration begging to be investigated? Or are they just arrogant, and think they can operate with impunity.
Chuck,
DeleteIt defies logic for me. One would think that by now they would understand that they are under a microscope and that the public's trust has been lost. So, to continue to delay, further fail to disclose information and provide any transparency will only lead to more of the same. There is no coming back from this.
But then again, we need to consider those people involved with their lack of experience and emotional stability. Their self-delusion is misguided.
Another point that seems fishy to me is the difference of staff time and fees charged. Look at the I.T. fees for both requests, one costing the Village $200 and the other longer timeframe) was $350.00 (this hints that the volume of request/example #1 was substantial, even for a much shorter timeframe)
ReplyDeleteBut here is the clerks breakdown:
Example #1: 1/2 hr. = $14.02
Example #2: 250 hrs.= $6,190.00
Does this make any sense (other than the obvious)for you?
Hi Milton
ReplyDeleteThird paragraph at the top of your article spells this out perfectly.
“Please note that the FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies.”
Your legitimate concern as raised, is in the inconsistent fee schedule assessed to those who have filed these requests for information.
I wonder if the Village staff wouldn’t be better served rejecting all these wholesale requests for emails, texts and chats of elected officials. After all, there may be resident personal and confidential information contained in any exchange with a Commissioner that is under no legal obligation to be disclosed. Do we want transparency in our Village government ~ Yes! Do we need to risk infringing on privacy rights of our neighbors to achieve that, I don’t think so.
Stop these requests at the start, and you eliminate the sticker shock of the bill at the end, regardless of how the calculations might have been fashioned.
Good stuff. Keep up the watch. This is the essential role of the 4th estate!
Rafael
Welcome to the blog Rafael. I will state that we are in disagreement as to the main issue here, and the problems contained herein. And that was unfair or grossly biased billing for some, and further, in the outright refusal of service from staff for certain residents. That is in every way possible.... willful discrimination.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, elected officials are not to be protected as you describe, nor should they be. The public has a right to their communications and to hold them accountable for their actions as our representatives when needed. Again, this should not be, and wasn't in the past, such a "high demand request item" if you have good government practices and have established trust. But that trust has been broken and that point remains the common denominator. Also, there are specific disclosure laws that protect "certain personal information" that already exist for officials and employees.
As mentioned in the article, our Public Records Request management system is now internally broken. In my opinion we need to get back to a more open, honest, and transparent style of government. Proper management and oversight, as opposed to "mere avoidance" can be utilized to handle the few "wholesale requests"- if they ever persist after the coming changing of the tide, so to speak.
Authoritarianism is the wrong direction for our community. No one asked for this….save for the "one" behind it all.
ReplyDelete