• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ferguson Demands High Fees To Turn Over City Files

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON (AP) — Officials in Ferguson, Missouri, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to turn over files under public records laws about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.The move discourages journalists and civil rights groups from investigating the shooting and its aftermath. And it follows dozens of records requests to Ferguson under the state's Sunshine Law, which can offer an unvarnished look into government activity.
The city has demanded high fees to produce copies of records that, under Missouri law, it could give away free if it determined the material was in the public's interest to see. Instead, in some cases, the city has demanded high fees with little explanation or cost breakdown.
In one case, it billed The Associated Press $135 an hour — for nearly a day's work — merely to retrieve a handful of email accounts since the shooting. That fee compares with an entry-level, hourly salary of $13.90 in the city clerk's office, and it didn't include costs to review the emails or release them. The AP has not paid for the search.


Read more @: Ferguson Demands High Fees To Turn Over City Files

Well.. I think its obvious. The city of Ferguson is obviously is hiding something...
 
Ferguson, like most municipalities, will find any way possible to bring in more revenue.

Surprised a Socialist has a problem with this.
 
there are so many requests for information from so many different sources

they dont employ people to handle that type of volume

so they are probably charging high fees to lessen the requests

if i was running the administration department, i would be looking for ways to lessen the strain on my budget, and my people
 
Either that or they're trying to stem the inevitable tide of requests from every one of the thousands of internet "journalists" that will be making these requests. It's reasonable to believe that they would have to hire dozens (if not hundreds) of employees to meet all the likely requests and that the cost of doing so would cause the city to go broke in a heartbeat.

Normally I'd suggest that they simply put out a comprehensive informational packet and make it publicly downloadable but I suspect that in this particular case it wouldn't stem the tide of requests from conspiracy theorists anyway. The city is in a "no win" situation here and has to do what they can.

Now, if these news agencies really want the information it shouldn't be too hard for them to partner up on the requests, spread the cost among themselves, and make their own copies so that everyone gets what they want.
 
Either that or they're trying to stem the inevitable tide of requests from every one of the thousands of internet "journalists" that will be making these requests. It's reasonable to believe that they would have to hire dozens (if not hundreds) of employees to meet all the likely requests and that the cost of doing so would cause the city to go broke in a heartbeat.

Normally I'd suggest that they simply put out a comprehensive informational packet and make it publicly downloadable but I suspect that in this particular case it wouldn't stem the tide of requests from conspiracy theorists anyway. The city is in a "no win" situation here and has to do what they can.

Now, if these news agencies really want the information it shouldn't be too hard for them to partner up on the requests, spread the cost among themselves, and make their own copies so that everyone gets what they want.

There's always subpoenaing the records.
 
There's always subpoenaing the records.

My understanding is that these are mostly FOIA requests. It's unlikely that the media are suing for the records and if they were the legal costs would make the cost of acquiring the records totally incidental.
 
I like how, when it comes to things like public land, water and tax money, the right is all "It belongs to the people and the people paid for it so the people should be able to keep it and use it however they want" but when it comes to public records they get all "The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever they want. It's their records!"
 
I am surprised the FOIA is applicable, since I think there are still active investigations happening.
I wonder what would take precedence, a FOIA, or an individuals civil rights?
 
I like how, when it comes to things like public land, water and tax money, the right is all "It belongs to the people and the people paid for it so the people should be able to keep it and use it however they want" but when it comes to public records they get all "The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever they want. It's their records!"

I doubt anyone would argue that they should charge whatever they want. The individuals in this thread seem to be explaining why this is a reasonable price, or asking what the normal price is for comparison.

The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever is reasonable <> The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever they want.
 
I doubt anyone would argue that they should charge whatever they want. The individuals in this thread seem to be explaining why this is a reasonable price, or asking what the normal price is for comparison.

The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever is reasonable <> The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever they want.

No, not one right winger has argued they should charge whatever is reasonable. they have argued that the price should priced high enough to discourage requests which, by definition, is unreasonable. There is also a post saying it's OK for ferguson to use the requests to increase revenue
 
I like how, when it comes to things like public land, water and tax money, the right is all "It belongs to the people and the people paid for it so the people should be able to keep it and use it however they want" but when it comes to public records they get all "The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever they want. It's their records!"

One small issue there, the public DOES have to pay for these records requests. If these requests could be fulfilled by an employee or employees as part of their regular duties then the price might be unreasonable but if it requires overtime, new employees, legal review, etc. then passing the cost on to the requesting entities is wholly appropriate.
 
One small issue there, the public DOES have to pay for these records requests. If these requests could be fulfilled by an employee or employees as part of their regular duties then the price might be unreasonable but if it requires overtime, new employees, legal review, etc. then passing the cost on to the requesting entities is wholly appropriate.

As the OP makes clear, it's the requestor who is paying (or more accurately, over paying) for the requests.

And $135/hr is not "passing on the cost"
 
I like how, when it comes to things like public land, water and tax money, the right is all "It belongs to the people and the people paid for it so the people should be able to keep it and use it however they want" but when it comes to public records they get all "The govt of Ferguson should charge whatever they want. It's their records!"


so, the county should go bankrupt because some idiotic blogger puts in a request for information?

they arent denying the requests....they are just making the media (all media) pay for it

you want all the emails the chief sent out....sure....pony up your checkbook son.....

we have to pay those clerks to assemble that information, and copy that information

and with this many requests, that small administrative office is working lots of OT

should the citizens pay for that? or the media companies that want the information?

i vote the media companies.....
 
No, not one right winger has argued they should charge whatever is reasonable. they have argued that the price should priced high enough to discourage requests which, by definition, is unreasonable. There is also a post saying it's OK for ferguson to use the requests to increase revenue

1. The single post regarding local governments using any means necessary to raise runds does not indicate an opinion either way, simply that they do (He/she never said it was ok, simply that they do and they are surprised liberals don't like it). If anything, that would indicate the opposite of an endorsement.

2. They have argued that the price should be high enough to discourage an UNreasonable volume of requests.
 
so, the county should go bankrupt because some idiotic blogger puts in a request for information?

they arent denying the requests....they are just making the media (all media) pay for it

you want all the emails the chief sent out....sure....pony up your checkbook son.....

we have to pay those clerks to assemble that information, and copy that information

and with this many requests, that small administrative office is working lots of OT

should the citizens pay for that? or the media companies that want the information?

i vote the media companies.....

Even at time and a half, it doesn't cost them $135/hr. That's $90/hr straight time and if that's what their clerks are being paid, then I think we found the reason why Ferguson is going bankrupt.
 
1. The single post regarding local governments using any means necessary to raise runds does not indicate an opinion either way, simply that they do (He/she never said it was ok, simply that they do and they are surprised liberals don't like it). If anything, that would indicate the opposite of an endorsement.

2. They have argued that the price should be high enough to discourage an UNreasonable volume of requests.

1) Keep telling yourself that

2) There is no such thing as an "unreasonable volume of requests". Individual requests are either reasonable or not, and Ferguson is not claiming the requests are unreasonable (in which case they could simply deny the request)

And setting the fee in order to reduce requests is unreasonable.
 
As the OP makes clear, it's the requestor who is paying (or more accurately, over paying) for the requests.

And $135/hr is not "passing on the cost"

How can you be sure that $135/hr is unreasonable? Ferguson is under the microscope of the DoJ and any mistake they make is likely to be blown WAY out of proportion so legal review of any release is imperative. On top of that any personal information released about personnel could result in that person being harassed or even harmed so, under the circumstances, the "due diligence" stakes increase exponentially from what they normally are. Frankly, $135/hr is dirt cheap for professional legal review services.
 
No one has yet to show that the costs are exorbitant, unjustified or done to prevent release of information.
The last claim being idiotic.
 
How can you be sure that $135/hr is unreasonable? Ferguson is under the microscope of the DoJ and any mistake they make is likely to be blown WAY out of proportion so legal review of any release is imperative. On top of that any personal information released about personnel could result in that person being harassed or even harmed so, under the circumstances, the "due diligence" stakes increase exponentially from what they normally are. Frankly, $135/hr is dirt cheap for professional legal review services.


do you think the request comes in, some clerks fills it, and thats it?

no review?

no oversight?

really?

i wouldnt let a shred of paperwork go until my legal team cleared it....

and my corporate lawyers bill @ 165 hour for the regular guys, and 225 for the partners
 
How can you be sure that $135/hr is unreasonable? Ferguson is under the microscope of the DoJ and any mistake they make is likely to be blown WAY out of proportion so legal review of any release is imperative. On top of that any personal information released about personnel could result in that person being harassed or even harmed so, under the circumstances, the "due diligence" stakes increase exponentially from what they normally are. Frankly, $135/hr is dirt cheap for professional legal review services.

Because even at time and a half, that works out to $90/hr. Even their lawyers don't make that much and they're charging that for the time the clerks spend on the requests
 
2) There is no such thing as an "unreasonable volume of requests". Individual requests are either reasonable or not, and Ferguson is not claiming the requests are unreasonable (in which case they could simply deny the request)

Nonsense. The second definition of "unreasonable" when googled says: "beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness." Is it or acceptable or fair to expect a normal clerk's office to complete let's estimate, conservatively, 10 times the normal amount of work in a period of time? You forget that these offices are staffed to meet only a normal level of work volume. Perhaps they are protecting their customers from an unreasonable amount of time it would take to handle their request if they were even more inundated with that request. An individual request may be reasonable, but when combined with thousands of others just like it become unreasonable for the office personnel in their volume.

Besides, the AP hasn't even paid the bill yet. If many other organizations aren't paying their bills the office may be trying to recuperate losses on other requests. e.g., if 5-6 other requests failed to pay the necessary fees it would be reasonable to raise prices to ensure that you can pay the people doing the work. Before you say that's unreasonable, it's a daily occurance in healthcare.
 
Nonsense. The second definition of "unreasonable" when googled says: "beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness." Is it or acceptable or fair to expect a normal clerk's office to complete let's estimate, conservatively, 10 times the normal amount of work in a period of time? You forget that these offices are staffed to meet only a normal level of work volume. Perhaps they are protecting their customers from an unreasonable amount of time it would take to handle their request if they were even more inundated with that request. An individual request may be reasonable, but when combined with thousands of others just like it become unreasonable for the office personnel in their volume.

Wrong. FOIA requests are not required to be filled immediately. In fact, there is no time limit.

Besides, the AP hasn't even paid the bill yet. If many other organizations aren't paying their bills the office may be trying to recuperate losses on other requests. e.g., if 5-6 other requests failed to pay the necessary fees it would be reasonable to raise prices to ensure that you can pay the people doing the work. Before you say that's unreasonable, it's a daily occurance in healthcare.

Now you're just making up facts.
 
Wrong. FOIA requests are not required to be filled immediately. In fact, there is no time limit.

Now you're just making up facts.

You don't even acknowledge the meat of my arguments, much less respond to them.

The nature of your second criticism is so imprecise that responding to it would be quite literally unreasonable (i.e., not guided by or based on good sense). Considering that I no longer believe your goal is to understand another point of view besides your own, I am retiring from the conversation. Have a good afternoon.
 
Back
Top Bottom