Wow! Can you post an example? Interesting...
I wish !
I asked for BFPE emails ... got a reply that they wanted to charge me 50 bucks for the records than needed to be redacted (appellant's names) in accordance with the Peruta v. FOI Commission case HHB CV-13-5015745-S, decided 7 NOV 13.
I tossed back an email that they should not even have had deliberations via email (violation of the open meetings provisions of the Act) ... so I don't see why I have to pay to gather records regarding meetings that violate the Act.
I am going to the BFPE next week to further discuss.
I informed the BFPE that the exemption that was decided in the Peruta case are just that, exemptions. And that the agency can still provide me with unredacted records if they choose as agencies are not required to take advantage of redactions. The BFPE was told by a FOI Commission attny that they MUST redact but the law says otherwise and when I called the same FOI attny, she did a 180 after I informed her that the records are records of a meeting that violates the Act then she said that she did not know if it was appropriate to charge fees in my specific set of circumstances...so I'll argue as to why should I pay fees.
I only asked to inspect the records, not for copies...and the appropriateness of charging copy fees for redaction is based on a handful of prior FOI Commission cases and all of them are distinguishable from the nature of the records here.
A demand for inappropriate fees is a denial to access to records under the Act. One can either a) pay the fee and ask the FOI Commission for a refund of the charges [you get the records but it costs cash] or b) consider the request for fees to be a denial.
I'm thinking about asking for a handful of records instead of all 83 emails. I would just file a new request, no biggie but it would allow them to cherry pick. And then file a second request asking for the remaining ones ... and then file a complaint. Lots of options.