- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
:doh
It costs to do so.
Ok. Then I go back again to my original point. The cit government is not a for profit run business.
:doh
It costs to do so.
You're a smart guy. I know you don't think that the only cost involved in the hourly pay of a worker.
Information costs money. Everything costs money. The city of Ferguson isn't in business to feed the media.
Why would you think they have something to hide if they're giving out the information that they can, for a fee? They're providing it, so obviously they don't have anything to hide. Refusal to provide it would be an indication that they are hiding something.
'Other governments also have demanded spectacular fees. During the 2008 presidential campaign, for instance, news organizations asked for emails belonging to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential nominee.
The Anchorage Press said officials at first wanted $6,500 in search fees, leading the newspaper to withdraw its request. Thousands of pages of those emails were ultimately provided to news organizations for about $725 in copying charges.
Very good!!
However, that refers to a future search and not one that has already been carried out. Furthermore, it seems contrary to the law which states, according to the article, "Some state open records laws provide records for free or little cost, while others like Missouri can require fees that "result in the lowest charges for search, research and duplication."
Hiring a consulting company to do this will not result in the lowest charges; it will produce the highest charges.
Very good!!
However, that refers to a future search and not one that has already been carried out. Furthermore, it seems contrary to the law which states, according to the article, "Some state open records laws provide records for free or little cost, while others like Missouri can require fees that "result in the lowest charges for search, research and duplication."
Hiring a consulting company to do this will not result in the lowest charges; it will produce the highest charges.
From the article
'
funny how the right wingers are defending the govt charging people to tell us what they're doing. When Lois Lerner doesn't produce an email, Congress launches an investigation and the wing nuts flip out.
Not necessarily. As I said before, due to the scrutiny surrounding this incident having a third party involved in handling document requests would be "best practices".
The IRS matter is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. That case involves obstruction.
Oh... my... God. I tell ya, some people. Threads like this remind me that the human species should never be taken too seriously. The arguments in defense of the city charging fees this high are some of the most brainless, moronic, idiotic arguments I have seen regarding any subject in quite a long time. I swear, the only possible "reasonable" explanation is that there's a full moon and several people are feeling the need to be argumentative for argument's sake.
:dohOk. Then I go back again to my original point. The cit government is not a for profit run business.
:dohWell.. I think its obvious. The city of Ferguson is obviously is hiding something... [/FONT][/COLOR]
Prove it.
Prove that this isn't what they normally charge.
No one has yet to show that the costs are exorbitant, unjustified or done to prevent release of information.
The last claim being idiotic.
I recently had to gather donor info for a person who is running for office. The freedom of information request cost me a total around $20. It was around 40 pages. Was in the office for around 45 minutes.
Ok. Then I go back again to my original point. The cit government is not a for profit run business.
County office.
No idea. Nor should that have to do with anything because the government is not a profit and demand...
What is then? If you have the information please provide it...
with most requests, i would agree
this is a fairly unusual situation for a small government office
they are being inundated with thousands of requests, from every media outlet in the country
from the biggies like the cnns, abc, ap, all the way down to the local reporters at some small newspaper down south
then you have the requests from the columnists, bloggers, editorialists, and other associated writers all over the internet
do you really think you are comparing apples to apples?
they are supplying the information....for a price
i would suppose they brought on additional staff to help, and some sort of legal representation to go through the stuff before it is sent out
It was not 10 times the cost of an employees salary. It was a reasonable amount.That's interesting, but I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion.
e-mail accounts following the shooting, police reports, personnel files, text messages.What specific documents were they looking for anyway? And for what reason?
No.I'm just curious, did they get what they were looking for in the end (documents)? If so, doesn't it challenge your assertion that they have "something to hide"? I'm not clear on what your major gripe with this story is - the high fees, or the notion that they're hiding something (and if so, what would they be hiding that would impact the Brown shooting)?
:doh
Back to my original point which you clearly didn't answer.
And back also to my second point.
Its called common sense. If you pay an employee 13.50 an hour then charge 10 times that amount...
Clearly you do not know what common sense is.
You haven't proved jack.
Nor is your ridiculously absurd illogical insinuation is "common sense".
The fact that they can get the information they request just shows by "common sense" that nothing is being hidden.
The only thing is cost, and the article pretty much explains that an outside consulting firm is being used, which is reasonable.
Are you not paying attention. "An outside consulting firm is being used, which is reasonable.""An average hourly rate for clerical staff to make copies. The FY 2010 average hourly pay rate for clerical staff is $12. This will be the standard fee for staff time for making copies, with a minimum charge of $6 or ½ hour of time." Open Record-Sunshine Requests - DNR
Are you not paying attention. "An outside consulting firm is being used, which is reasonable."
This is standard fees.Nor is this the ****ing Department of Natural Resources we are talking about.
Really? Why all the red tape? Why the extra costs?And your insinuation that they are hiding something is just as absurd.
:doh One case. :dohOhhh Excon... It was one case they wanted to pay an outside firm, and they didnt call it "reasonable"...
:dohThis is standard fees.
Holy ****! Try using some common sense.Really? Why all the red tape? Why the extra costs?
Thats literally what the article states. It reads on a case to case basis.:doh One case. :doh
Again. "a practice that information technology experts call unnecessary. "And yes it is reasonable given it is an outside firm being contracted to do the work.
Sooo what experts think is dumb!Whether the requester thinks it is reasonable or not matters not one iota. Duh!
It is still reasonable when an outside firm is contracted.
No. For everything that is accounted with the Sunshine Law.:doh
For the DNR which we are not discussing.
For the DNR who is not inundated with requests.
For the DNR who is not contracting with an outside firm.
Stop with the absurdities.
:lamoHoly ****! Try using some common sense.
Yes really. Duh!
The information can be obtained if the price is paid. That is not hiding a damn thing.
Had it been priced outside of anyone's reach, then you might have had a point. But since it isn't, your insinuation is illogical and absurd.