News

FOIA denial called into question

By DOMINIC ADAMS Argus-Press Staff Writer

Monday, August 25, 2008 10:03 AM EDT

CORUNNA - Shiawassee County Sheriff Jon Wilson may have violated Michigan's Freedom of Information Act when he charged The Argus-Press $10 for a one-page FOIA request denial.

A Freedom of Information Act request can be made by anyone to obtain information from public agencies.

The Argus-Press requested information regarding the Law Enforcement Information Network rights of former Corunna Police Officer Angelo Panos. The sheriff's department keeps record of who has LEIN rights within the county.

In Wilson's Aug. 18, two-paragraph denial, he stated, “...internal labor issues are not subject to FOIA. I have no knowledge concerning the details of Mr. Panos' employment issues.”

Wilson sent a letter to Panos Aug. 18 detailing Panos' employment issues.

“Chief (Kim) Williams called Lt. (Mike) Ash and advised that you were no longer employed with the City of Corunna,” the letter to Panos reads. “At that time, Lt. Ash requested (Central) Dispatch to remove your LEIN rights.”

Wilson also sent The Argus-Press an invoice for $10 for the FOIA denial.

Michigan's FOIA law allows a government agency to charge a fee associated with actual duplication, mailing and clerical labor costs.

If an agency denies a request written notice describing reasons for the denial and the requester's right to seek judicial review is required, the law reads.

According to the law, a denial also must include information detailing a petitioner's right to receive attorney's fees and collect damages.

Wilson's denial may not fulfill certain statutory obligations.

“He can't charge you for the response,” said Dawn Hertz, general council for the Michigan Press Association.

Hertz said Wilson's use of a “labor issue” exemption is a broad answer. Panos did not work for Wilson or the sheriff's department, therefore, Hertz argues, he cannot claim that exemption.

“I don't know what he meant. At this point, I don't agree with him,” she said. “He's not an employer or employee. I don't think he has any right to use that exemption.”

Wilson did not answer numerous phone calls to his cell phone seeking comment.

Comment on this Story

Chris McCall wrote on Sep 3, 2008 8:38 PM:

" Hey Mr. Yukk, how about you take a nice long walk off a short pier. Make sure you land head first. "

Mr Yukk wrote on Aug 31, 2008 9:58 AM:

" Wilson did this because he and his Crony’s blame the press for him losing the primary. Clearly he will do what ever it takes to cost the county money because he is a lame duck sheriff. I hope he continues being a idiot! "

Mr Yukk wrote on Aug 30, 2008 10:10 PM:

" Hey Chris McCall. The truth is you probity never subscribed to the paper to begin with. As for the name calling "yup" you’re in the Wilson camp alright! You guys can't make intelligent argument without attacking someone's character! Just another day in the world that someone in the Wilson camp blames anyone but the person responsible for their own demise. "

Wallace Nolen Barre VT wrote on Aug 27, 2008 7:11 PM:

" This is typical of governmental bureaucrats! Why doesn't the newspaper force the issue all the way to the courts? In most states, an official of any agency is required to certify in writing as to the "record" described in the request does not exist! If the Sheriff did that, and the document does exist than the sheriff would be guilty of perjury!

The newspaper is correct that if the subject of the request did not work for the sheriff's department the sheriff cannot claim that such record is a personnel issue which otherwise would be exempt by state statute. The mere fact that it might relate as in this case broadly involving another police agency's personnel issues cannot be legally used to exempt the record in the hands of this sheriff.

As someone who has sued more than 200 governmental agencies in many states I think the newspaper should sue to force the production, or at the very least, get the sheriff to make a material false statement and then go to the local criminal prosecutor and get the sheriff charged with a crime!

see:

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=7985348

A felony conviction would mean the end of this Sheriff's career as a "law enforcement officer" permanently.

It is about time that more and more people, never mind the newspapers started to take public officials into court to force the production of the records. If more and more people did this there would be far less obstruction of the public's lawful right of inspection of public records.

What do these officials have to hide? Where there is smoke there usually is a fire!

Wallace Nolen
PO Box 53
Barre VT 05641-0053

email: wallacenolen2@yahoo.com "

Dave wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:38 PM:

" I don't know the sheriff, and I don't know the reporters, but the ironic issue here is that the sheriff is breaking the state public records law by charging someone who simply requested a public record. In the big scheme of things it doesn't matter much - what's $10? But it speaks to the character of the sheriff and how citizens might be treated.

For example, imagine if a house was broken into down the block from you and you were interested in finding out basic details (when it happened, suspect descriptions, etc.) to protect yourself, and you asked the sheriff's office for a basic incident report. Then imagine them coming back and saying you can't have it and then charging you $10 for simply asking. No state in this country allows such a charge for simply requesting a record. The fact an officer of the law would twist the law in such a way is disturbing. It makes sheriffs and public officials everywhere look arrogant, secretive, and abusive, and that's a shame. "

Chris McCall wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:14 PM:

" Im not sure who this " m.spencer " is, but I cant believe the comments and opinions Im reading of his on this web sight. Your comments make me feel like Im in junior high again. Unfortunately people with the mentality such as yours and this news paper have caused this " train wreck " for Jon. This whole situation discusts me. So to all the " m.spencers " out there; nice going jackass! Consider my subscription cancelled.

Chris McCall, Owosso MI "

Chetly Zarko wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:41 PM:

" Having done one of the FOIAs with the Sheriff's office last year (as a matter of disclosure, I was paid to do a request as a surrogate, so I have a fiduciary bias here), and being a conservative myself who strongly supports FOIA and other transparency (transparency makes bad government harder, folks), I can say that Wilson has completely misread FOIA here, both on the "labor issues" front (there is no labor issues exemption, and both "privacy" and "advisory notes" exemptions were ruled to not protect the entire personnel records of a teacher in the Michigan Supreme Court ruling in Bradley v. Saranac et al) and the FOIA costs provision. I'm surprised at the way the article frames "labor issues" as a possible exemption - it simply isn't in FOIA except in the context of labor issues having potential "privacy" implications, and most of the time they don't. Not only can't you charge for a denial, your charges must outline the actual costs of production of records (a denial doesn't produce records). An invoice for $10 is random and doesn't outline why or how that number was a cost for the public body. "

Mad at the system wrote on Aug 26, 2008 4:02 PM:

" are you all kidding....you know this paper is getting to be worse then the stupid drama star papers! Does anyone really care! "

m.spencer wrote on Aug 26, 2008 7:44 AM:

" hey nvstalot - if ten bucks inst anything to you why dont you pay it,wilson is nothing more than a complete idiot,everyone finally knows it.thank god he is going out the door.hope he has a good time looking for work.oh thats right he will just keep pushing little old women around.thats the only thing ive ever seen him good at bye bye "

IsHeStillHere wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:42 AM:

" Time to GO, Jon.... just sneak out with your tail between your legs in the defeat with which you have been shown the door.
Adios amigo, Sayonara, Au revoir, etc. "

Wilson sucks wrote on Aug 26, 2008 1:02 AM:

" what a pompus dingleberry Wilson is! "

Spencer wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:29 AM:

" People including the Argus Press let them do their job its none of our business Stay out of it and stop creating gossip and stop acting like kids "

Anne wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:04 PM:

" Wilson is intent on making himself look more foolish then he already looks, I see.

I wasn't aware that was even possible... "

Nvstalot wrote on Aug 25, 2008 7:00 PM:

" Are you serious? This newspaper did everything possible to push the candidacy of the opponents of Sheriff Wilson prior to the election and now you're taking "valuable" (ha) space in your paper to whine over a $10 invoice that you rightfully should pay. How petty and immature "

tlt wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:50 PM:

" Now whatchya gotta say Mrs.Cowdrey????????????? "

charlie murphy wrote on Aug 25, 2008 6:10 PM:

" wanting to leave his mark before hes gone!!!! "