A great way to cut down on the cost of obtaining public records is to make your own copy.

In the past, that would have meant bringing in your own portable photocopier or one of those 110 spy cameras like they show in old movies on late-night TV. But today, with high-resolution digital cameras, cellphone cameras and tablet computers, it’s really easy.

So easy that Durango, Colo., wants to outlaw it.

The Durango Herald reports the city is going to vote on an ordinance Tuesday to bar records requesters from taking pictures of the documents they are seeking. City Clerk Amy Philips said the practice is costing the city money, in that the staff takes time to assemble “the records and let people come in and observe the records and tag which ones they want copies of, but we’re finding out now that people are able to come in with a phone and just (photograph) the copies.

“Then we don’t retrieve the money we spent.”

Along with banning photography, the city is planning to charge people $30 an hour for records requests to cover staff time spent filling the request on top of the 25-cent fee for copies.

The Durango City Council will vote on the proposal at the June 17 meeting.

We saw a similar argument in Utah, when that state’s legislature pushed through a bill gutting the state’s Government Records Access and Management Act. One of the changes it proposed was to add overhead costs — employee benefits, building utilities, rent, etc. — to the fees charged for records.

There are a couple problems with calls to “recoup” fees for public documents.

The fees charged for copying usually go well above and beyond the actual costs. When adding the costs of paper, toner and depreciation on the photocopier, the actual cost is about 1.5 cents per copy, which explains how copy centers can charge 7 cents a copy and stay in business.

I’ve personally seen a 911 dispatch center in Utah charge $20 for a recording of an emergency call on a compact disc. Depending on where you shop, a CD can cost about 25 cents a copy, and if Apple can get away with selling songs for 99 cents, a $1.25 would be a reasonable cost.

As far as the employees’ time, filling a records request, especially if it is a request that benefits the public, is just part of their job, which the public is already paying for through their taxes. Essentially, a records requester is being asked to pay twice for the same employee.

High fees can be used as a tool to deny access, especially for people of modest means.

A real-life example of this happened when the Utah Democratic Party sought records and correspondence releated to the Republican-dominated Legislature’s redistricting efforts. The Legislature charged them almost $15,000 for three boxes.

Officials only backed down when media outlets asked for the records.

A records fee could be justified in cases where a business is making the request solely for self-interest. But bureaucrats shouldn’t use public records as a revenue stream.

Seattle Times reporter Mike Carter (courtesy of Mike Carter)

Mike Carter is proud to call himself a watchdog at The Seattle Times.

After all, they’re an endangered breed in U.S. newsrooms, where tight budgets mean tighter leashes on reporters likely to rack up hefty legal fees in their investigations and exposures.

But in his latest bout to obtain public information from the Seattle Police Department, Carter earned $20,000 for the Times without ever setting foot in court.

After a quest for a police memorandum lingered on for 11 months, Carter learned the department purposefully withheld it from the Times, violating Washington’s Public Records Act, so the police paid the Times a settlement to avoid a lawsuit.

Even so, Carter says when it comes to purging public information from government agencies and law enforcement, it’s never about the money.

“It’s a principle sort of thing,” Carter said.

On May Day 2012, a day of violent workers’ rights demonstrations, Carter and fellow reporter Steve Miletich were on the story, and by 11 a.m. Carter could tell the police weren’t prepared.

Earlier that morning, Assistant Chief Mike Sanford intercepted control of police operations and confused officers when he limited how much pepper spray they could use. He also told them not to make any arrests in the uproarious crowd.

As a noontime march grew increasingly violent, protesters tore through traffic, smashing storefronts and car windows with sticks.

When the police arrived, Sanford further complicated matters by charging the crowd in his business attire— white button up, black pants and dress shoes—without any protective gear.

Seattle Police carry off a participant in a May Day rally near Pike Place Market on May 1, 2012. (photo by John Lok)

He was assaulted, and other officers had to use force to rescue him, upsetting the community that the police’s own officer diverted their attention from protesters pillaging the streets.

Having reported on the police department since 2000, Carter knew Seattle Police Precinct Capt. Joe Kessler would be furious. At the time of the protests, Seattle police were already under the watchful eye of the Justice Department for their “unnecessary and excessive” use of force in a series of 2009-2010 incidents. Mishandling May Day only made matters worse.

Sources told Carter that Kessler sent a scathing internal memorandum to two police officers criticizing the department’s rash actions.

As more sources mentioned the “Kessler memo,” Carter began to see it as the missing puzzle piece the public needed to understand how their law enforcement had failed them.

Since it was subject to public disclosure, he was determined to wrestle it free from the control of police who held it out of view.

After SPD Chief John Diaz mentioned the memo, Carter and Miletich published an article on July 23, 2012 telling the public everything he knew about it. Carter purposefully filed a public disclosure request the same day.

“We wanted to amp the pressure up and shake the memo loose,” Carter said.

Sources told him the memo was only addressed to deputy chiefs Nick Metz and Clark Kimerer, so when Carter filed for disclosure, he cast a net “clearly intended to capture the Kessler memo,” asking for all emails, attachments, documents and memoranda involving May Day planning and response from all SPD captains and lieutenants involved.

He thought it would be easy to get because there’s no exemption in the Public Records Act for embarrassment.

“That’s what the Kessler memo was—embarrassment,” Carter said. “They had a captain being specifically critical of his superior over what could be called a debacle in their department.”

According to protocol, the department sent him a letter July 30 acknowledging they’d received his request, but they twice delayed their deadline to disclose the information until Sept. 17.

That’s when the documents started pouring in.

For the next eight months, Carter and Miletich combed through pages upon pages of tangled email strings and repetitive police reports. But the Kessler memo was still missing.

Carter suspected the police were waiting to reveal the memo until they filed their own (long overdue) after action report to counterbalance bad press the memo might arouse.

But when the SPD finally released their report on April 3, 2013, the Kessler memo never came.

Instead, Carter got an email from the department, saying they had fulfilled his request, and they were closing it.

At first he thought it was a mistake.

“I thought they forgot because I could not believe they were not going to actually give it to me,” Carter said.

He filed an email appeal with Diaz that morning, and when he confronted Diaz at a city council meeting that afternoon, the officer admitted the department intentionally withheld the memo. He sent Carter a copy later that day.

“But at that point, the damage had been done,” Carter said. “They were in clear violation of the law.”

That’s when decisions about the newspaper’s next steps fell to Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman, who met with  First Amendment attorney Eric Stahl and Times investigations editor James Neff.

“We came to the very quick conclusion that we couldn’t let the SPD get away with it,” Boardman said. “It was so blatant that we really had to call them on it.”

The Times sent a letter of intent to the police department on May 9 telling them they had a choice: either they could pay a $20,000 settlement or the Times would take them to court.

Boardman said the SPD was “quickly responsive and surprisingly open.” They worked with the Times’ attorney to pay the fee.

“We were not interested in asking for that amount of money to enrich us in any way or make tax payers angry with us,” Boardman said. “But we did want a big enough number to pay (potential) legal bills and send a clear message to the department that said, ‘You can’t get away with this. Don’t do it again.’”

Boardman gives credit to the Times’ owners for never shying away from costly legal disputes.

He said stories like Carter’s and Miletich’s are every news organization’s best defense against government agencies and public employees unions who are always looking to limit public access to records and free information.

“We’re able to pull out important investigative stories and successfully fight off those changes,” Boardman said. “We tell them, ‘You can’t do that because then we can’t tell these stories.’”

Kara Hackett is SPJ’s Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern, a freelance writer and a free press enthusiast. Contact her at khackett@spj.org or on Twitter: @KaraHackett.

Arizona city suggests capping records requests that take ‘long hours’ to complete

Arizona open records laws may be under attack if the legislature passes a bill that threatens to limit the number of information requests a person can file, according to the Arizona Daily Sun. Currently, Arizona law says records must be “open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.” But Yuma City Records Coordinator Susan Alden told the Daily Sun this law requires long hours for staffers to meet multiple, broad records requests. Even so, she said there is ”less need to limit the number of requests someone can submit in a period time,” and more need to allow agencies to charge for research time.

Wisconsin FOI Council calls out organization for labeling their own records private

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council is challenging a national federalism and conservative public policy organization for exchanging documents with government officials through private online drop boxes and labeling its own materials with disclaimers saying they are not subject to the Wisconsin open records law, according to the Beloit Daily News.

Michael Bowman, senior director of policy and strategic initiatives for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), said the organization publicizes its final policy decisions. But until then it keeps documents secret so they aren’t mistaken for final policy, the Daily New reported.

The group also uses drop box to exchange documents instead of email because it thinks drop box files are not subject to public records.

But the Freedom of Information Council scoffs at these practices, coming alongside Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy that filed a lawsuit June 6 seeking ALEC’s materials related to a Republican state senator.

“A stamp by a private non-governmental group saying the records that it shares with lawmakers are not subject to open records laws should carry no weight,” Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, told the Daily News.  “Absolutely none.”

Pennsylvania county conceals records for controller charged with felony

A Pennsylvania county denied the Citizens’ Voice news organization’s open records request for a county controller’s email records because he was arrested on felony electronic-surveillance charges, and he allegedly violated the state’s wiretap law, according to the Citizens’ Voice.

The Voice requested copies of the controller’s emails from January to May 2013 and from Jan. 1, 2012 to April 30, 2012, but said on June 11 that they were denied by Luzerne County because the controller “is under criminal and non-criminal investigations.”

The Citizens’ Voice said it plans to file appeals to the state Office of Open Records claiming that it is implausible that all of the controller’s emails are exempt from the Right To Know Law.

Kara Hackett is SPJ’s Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern, a freelance writer and a free press enthusiast. Contact her at khackett@spj.org or on Twitter: @KaraHackett. – See more at blogs.spjnetwork.org/foi

In a case that spanned decades, a federal judge has ordered the FBI to pay nearly a half-million in legal fees for holding back documents a journalist requested.

According to the First Amendment Center, Seth Rosenfeld had to file two lawsuits to obtain documents detailing the FBI’s investigation of campus protests at the University of California Berkley in the 1960s. U.S. Judge Edward Chen ruled that the documents should have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Rosenfeld has used FBI documents to write articles on the investigations of protestors, and recently published the book Subversives: The FBI’s War on Student Radicals, and Reagan’s Rise to Power.

The $470,000 will be paid to the First Amendment Project of Oakland, which represented Rosenfeld.

Without a proper criminal penalty for violating open-government laws, attorney’s fees are the only way to punish agencies that refuse to release information.

‘Never Seconds’ gets a second chance

The Argyll and Bute Council in Scotland recently reversed its decision to ban 9-year-old Martha Payne from taking pictures of her school lunch after a global response to their June 15 decision.

Payne, who with her NeverSeconds blog was bringing awareness to the poor-quality lunches in her school, says the food quality improved during her coverage. Her daily blog posts from Lochgilpead, Scotland,  featured a picture of the day’s food (hand-drawn if she forgot her camera – see June 11 post) and a health and food-o-meter grade for each meal. Lunch eaters from around the world also wrote in with posts on their school’s lunches.

The Council initially banned Payne from taking pictures because they said the school’s caterers were afraid of getting fired. However, after protests came in, including appeals from celeb chefs Nick Nairn and Jamie Oliver, the Council reversed course.

Council leader Roddy McCuish announced they would withdraw the ban. He said, “It’s a good thing to do, to change your mind, and I’ve certainly done that,” the Daily Mail reported.

Martha’s father, Dave Payne, who has supported his daughter’s blogging,  said Martha is upbeat about the positive changes.

“She is delighted she can carry on blogging, but more so about the money being raised for the charity. People have been very, very generous. The way the world reacted to the ban is very revealing, it’s just fantastic that common sense has prevailed,” Dave Payne said, according to the Daily Mail.

A fundraising effort through her blog has raised more than £84,000 (a little over $131,000)  for charitable organization Mary’s Meals.  The charity plans to build a kitchen in Malawi with some of the funds providing food to hungry children there, the BBC reports. Martha Payne said she plans to name the kitchen “Friends of Never Seconds” for those whose donations made her work possible.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

Text Messages, Emails are Public Records in Illinois

A city council member in Champaign, Ill., tried to withhold text and email messages between council members in response to a records request by local media. The council member claimed messages were exempt since they were sent from personal devices.  However, Sangmon County circuit court Judge John Schmidt ordered text and other electronic messages sent by the council to be turned over.

Exemption Caught in the Nick of Time in Connecticut

An exemption was proposed during a special legislative session in Connecticut that would allow the state to withold dealings with companies seeking financial assistance from the  state.

The exemption would exclude records between the state and companies looking to grow or move into Connecticut that request financial help from the state “…provided the disclosure of such records could adversely affect the financial interest of the state, the business or organization.” Media outlets and FOI advocates took issue with the broadly stated exemption, originally slated to pass during the June 12 legislative session.

“This is as outrageous an assault on the public’s right to know as one could imagine,” said Matt DeRienzo, group editor of Group Register Company’s Connecticut publications on a Connecticut Newsroom blog post.

However, as media outlets reacted to the overly broad wording of the bill, the government responded: The amendment was stricken from Tuesday’s special legislative  session.

Special Police Unit in Uganda

Uganda has created a special police unit to respond to abuses against media and journalists. The Press Unit comes at a much needed time for the country where there were 100 recorded cases of journalists being attacked in 2011.

“This development comes at a critical time when journalists in Uganda are starting to lose hope of getting justice for the numerous abuses and violations meted against them by both state and non-state actors,”  said Henry O. Maina, Director, ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, ARTICLE 19 reported.

* The June 6 FOI FYI blog post mentioned various testimonies during the  House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform’s hearing on the lockout policies set forth by the Department of Labor. We failed to mention that Lucy Dalglish, while executive director of Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, was testifying on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative. The Sunshine in Government Initiative is a conglomerate of media groups, including the Society of Professionals Journalists, aimed at promoting government transparency.

SGI members (according to the SGI website):

• American Society of News Editors
• Associated Press
• The Association of Alternative News Media
• National Newspaper Association
• Newspaper Association of America
• Online News Association
• Radio, TV, Digital News Association
• Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press
• Society of Professional Journalists

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

A vital aspect of success in freedom of information is the transition from the paper age to digital. While the United States was once a leader in freedom of information legislation and implementation, we still remain somewhat rooted in backlogs and delays, much of which could be solved.  The Office of Government Information Services is working to rectify this. OGIS is working with government agencies to move documents  online and make access to public documents consistent across agencies. The agency also has an online database where people can view cases that have been filed with OGIS, along with the case’s progress and results.

Two countries for OGIS to study in the move toward online transparency are Mexico and Norway. Both have already made significant progress with adapting their respective laws to the digital age.  In Mexico, where official freedom of information laws are only a decade old, there are INFO-DF and INFOMEX-DF. These websites allow interested parties in any country online access to public documents and search through previous FOI requests and the government’s response.

While it would be easy to point to Mexico’s relatively recent freedom of information laws, Norway’s public records law was implemented in 1970, with an update in 2003. Norway’s website is similar to Mexico’s, with information available for the public to access and share. They’ve also made public information available via Twitter. Additionally, the site boasts a Data hotel, where public bodies can more easily make information accessible online.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

In an article on changing corporate culture, strategic adviser Peter Bregman suggests the power of peer pressure to affect far-reaching change within the culture of a business .  Bregman cites a study by Leann Lipps Birch that showed children’s preferences for foods they disliked increased when they saw their peers eating the same foods.  Using this as a launching pad, he suggests the best way to change the culture of a company is to do positive, story-worthy things, or showcase those who are making positive efforts, and change the stories being told. Once people hear positive stories about their agency, they are more likely to follow suit.

What does this have to do with freedom of information? A look through stories in recent media shows that some public bodies and government officials are still less than excited to cooperate with the public’s demand for greater transparency and access to information. For example,  the House Committee for Government Oversight and Reform recently to investigated questionable Department of Labor policies that would affect media outlets. Additionally, committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the  ‘Fast and Furious’ operation.  These show public bodies need to shift from secrecy to transparency, ideally sparking a change among requesters — from suspicion to cautious trust.

However, there are still those who work to further government transparency, effectively changing the nature of the stories being told. For instance:

• Maurice Frankel, a freedom of information expert in the United Kingdom, is using the power of peer pressure to force change in his corner of the world. In a recent article, he offered The Netherlands’ punitive measures as an example of what can be done in instances of  freedom of information violations. Adding insult to injury, FOI violators may be subject to fines of 30 euros daily for late responses to FOI requests, to be paid directly to the requester. Fines can reach a maximum of 1260 euros. Frankel adds that The Netherlands FOI laws are currently under review, so the efficacy of these punitive measures may soon be known.
• Rosemary Agnew, Scotland’s  Information Commissioner,  is looking for ways to inexpensively train public bodies. Agnew is trying to help public bodies  respond correctly to requests when they’re first made, effectively freeing up resources in the process.  Agnew has experience with responding to freedom of information requests. She found training to be expensive, and is working to find ways to make training more affordable and accessible to all employees in the public sector.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

Arkansas  is showing it takes Freedom of Information seriously.

Recently, Craighead County Special Judge Orville Clift fined officials from Bono for an FOI violation, The Associated Press reports.  Mayor Billy Stephens was fined $200, and Aldermen John Dodd, Leon Hamilton and Jerry Sullins $250 each for failing to publicly announce a meeting they held regarding a new police chief. Additionally, each received 30 days suspended  jail time and were ordered to attend an educational FOIA class, held by the Arkansas Press Association, in hopes the education will help them avoid future infractions.

Perhaps the Bono officials would have benefited by attending one of Arkansas’ ongoing FOIA education initiatives.

Dubbed the FOI ” Road Show,” this workshop has hit the road in Arkansas with the aim to educate officials and the public on freedom of information laws.  In this proactive move, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has joined with the Arkansas Press Association. Although targeted to public bodies that handle FOI requests, interested members of the public are also invited to attend. The road show will stop in Little Rock on June 12 from 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. at the Bowen School of Law.  This is the second installment of this year’s roadshow, with fall workshops planned in Fayetteville and Magnolia.

The event is free and includes lunch, but participants will need to register before the event.  Visit the Arkansas Attorney General’s website or arkansaspress.org for more information.

Other helpful resources:

• Check out Sunshine Review for information on transparency, FOI and government in your state.
• Click here to find out more about freedom of information laws and contact people in your state.
• Arkansans: Get your free copy of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Handbook here.

Whitney is the summer Pulliam/Killgore intern with SPJ. She recently graduated from Brigham Young University after studying journalism. Connect with her via email –  wevans@hq.spj.org –  or on twitter – @whitevs7

*Know something about Freedom of Information that you think we should cover in a blog post? We want to hear from you! Send information to wevans@HQ.SPJ.org. It may be featured in a future post.

“OG Pod,” a new open-government podcast focused on transparency issues in Washington, is available for listeners to access online.

The program provides advice for people searching for certain public records or planning to attend various government meetings. It will include rundowns on developments in the courts, legislature and media regarding transparency issues.

For those who need advice on the nitty gritty details of the Open Public Meetings Act or Public Records Act, this podcast will dish out plenty of helpful tips.

The Freedom Foundation and Greg Overstreet of Allied Law Group, which specializes in open government legal matters, host OG Pod. Its author is Michael Reitz, who serves as General Counsel of the Freedom Foundation and is the director of its Constitutional Law Center.

Listeners can access the podcasts from iTunes and Facebook as well.

– Morgan Watkins

Morgan Watkins is SPJ’s summer Pulliam/Kilgore Freedom of Information intern and a University of Florida student. Reach her by email (mwatkins@spj.org) or connect with her on Twitter (@morganwatkins26).