imported post
xdm guy wrote:
SNIP The Department has received your request and has estimated that it will cost approximately $36.00 to produce the documents/items in existence as requested. Please note that once produced, if these items need redaction (other person’s personal identifying information and/or other statutory exemptions) it may be slightly more.
In addition, not all of items exist in a format, which can be emailed. In accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.2-3704 (B) (4), and in order to completely and properly respond to your request without negatively impacting public safety and our intense operational responsibilities, the Department does need to utilize seven additional work days to respond to your request.
Please let me know if you still wish for the Department to process your request and/or if you have any questions.
Which items can not be e-mailed ? Could not find anywere in2.2-3704 that gives the power to charge for redactions or legal review by the City Attorney . Any duplicating fee charged by a public body shall not exceed the actual cost of duplication. Please send me a itemized cost list.
In accordance with your request, the approximate cost of searching and producing the requested records is as follows:
CAD Technician ($27.54 x 15 minutes) $ 8.85
Duty Sergeant ($26.80 x 25 minutes) $11.17
Trooper ($19.47 x 60 minutes) $19.47
6 Copies x .10/each $ .60
2 CDs x .26/each .53
Postage (approximate) $ 1.50
Total (approximate) $42.12
The FOIA Council has opined that the cost of redaction is a cost of production. The two CDs are not formatted to be emailed. Please let me know if you wish for the Department to proceed with processing your request. Please note that if you do wish to proceed, the Department will need an additional seven work days to produce in accordance with 2.2-3704 (B) (4) once you notify the agency as noted below.
So I guess media files cant be emailed anymore ?
What is a cad technician needed for ?
Why am I paying for Leo's to do work that they should have already done ?
Does this seem high to anyone ?
At a certain point you have a separate issue of badgering the agency to comply with FOIA. It can become its own fight, separate from the incident that triggered the records requests.
I recommend sticking to your guns. Two things I see right off the bat are the offered formats and the lack of explanation for the additional seven days.Beloware the relevant sections. Highlights and emphasis are mine:
Regarding electronic formats; 2.2-3704.G
Public bodies shall produce nonexempt records maintained in an electronic database in any tangible medium identified by the requester, including, where the public body has the capability, the option of posting the records on a website or delivering the records through an electronic mail address provided by the requester, if that medium is used by the public body in the regular course of business. No public body shall be required to produce records from an electronic database in a format not regularly used by the public body. However, the public body shall make reasonable efforts to provide records in any format under such terms and conditions as agreed between the requester and public body, including the payment of reasonable costs.
Just up and telling you vaguely that
some records are not e-mailable is not an attempt to "make reasonable effort to provide records in any format under such terms and conditions as agreed between the requester and the the public body."
Also,
some records supposedly not being e-mailable implies others are.
Ultimately, they may give you a sensible reason for not being able to e-mail some records. But, until they give you that sensible reason, you really have no idea. Trust me, police have the ability to ferret out the most nuanced significances when protecting their own interests. Which means they
could do it, if they wanted to,when reading the FOIA statute, too.
Regarding seven more days; 2.2-3704.B.4
They said:
In accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.2-3704 (B) (4), and in order to completely and properly respond to your request without negatively impacting public safety and our intense operational responsibilities, the Department does need to utilize seven additional work days to respond to your request.
The statute says: "Such response
shall specify the conditions that make a response impossible." (emphasis by Citizen)
What they said does not, "specify the conditions that make a [five day] response impossible."
The statute does not say, "give some information that hints at why it is not going to be done in five days." Nor does the statute say, "give some vague explanation from which the requester is supposed to draw his own conclusion."Nor,"Word a vague 'explanation'in a way that sounds heroicin the hope thatthe requester will draw a conclusion the requester finds acceptable."
By his own math, it is only going to take 1hr 40min by
from three different people. Is he really expecting you to believe that if the time is not spread out across 10 days, then public safety will be jeopardized and their intense operational responsibilities will be compromised? What the hell do they do when someone calls in sick (gasp!) for an entire day!?!?!
Just as a side note, give some attention to that little comment about "in accordance with 2.2-3704.B.4..." Accordance? Give me a break. The correct word is "compliance." They do not havestatutory discretion. They are
required to explain. "In accordance" is the phrasing a governmententityuses when it wants to go along with some directive without actually admitting it is required to do so because such admission would legitimize the authority of the directive.
This next is just me. I might even call them out on that"accordance" comment. Being sufficiently annoyed by the initialdepartures from what is required, I mightwrite back something like,
"In accordance with 2.2-3704.B.4 you need seven more days?First, itis not'accordance'.The word you are avoiding is 'compliance'.You are required to
comply with the statute, unless you would like to tell the General Assembly that you personally believe you arethe only cop inthe whole state to whom the statute does not apply. Let meknow. I'll arrange the committee hearing for you. Furthermore, you did not even act 'in accordance' with the statute.[Iwould go on to explain how hedid notactuallyspecify the conditions that make a 5-day response impossible.]"
But, honey may work better than vinegar. You might try just calling his attention to the need for some"clarification" in the direction of doing what the statute calls for.
Myself, I would be inclined to back-charge them for having to trainthem on using the FOIA and demand they apply it as a credit to the cost of myFOIA request. But just as a method of showing them they are wasting my time, notbecause I really intend to not pay thedifference becausethey can refuse to fill your next request if any old request is more than 30 days unpaid. 2.2-3704.I.
2.2-3704:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-3704
