Justice Dept. to Charge $373K for Records (of detainee cases)

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON Jan 31, 2005 — The Justice Department says a group that wants to see secret documents about the detention of people jailed after the Sept. 11 attacks first must pay nearly $373,000 to cover the cost of searching for the information.

And the advance payment won't guarantee anything that's found will be released.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, government agencies must provide the public with access to government documents, unless the information falls under certain exemptions. The first two hours of a search are free. Agencies then charge for searches, the rate dependent on the level of the employees who do the work.

People for the American Way Foundation, which sued for the records last year, accused the Justice Department of making the cost exceedingly high to deter its request.
...
The estimate of $372,999 is a minimum, representing 13,314 1/4 hours of search time at $28 an hour, the letter said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=458913&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[w4rma]

1. Just how many folks have they illegally imprisoned to require 3,328

man-hours to find them all? Even at a rate of 1 person per hour that's a WHOLE lot of folks.

[ahimsa]

12. actually 13,314.25 hours

which is $372,799 / $28 per hour. So there are 4 times as many people locked up as you thought! :eyes:

on edit - they have two sets of numbers in the story - the subhead says "Justice Department Says Group Must Pay $372,799 for Agency to Conduct Detainee Records Search"

[Rex]

2. By the people, for the people

nt

[Rose Siding]

3. with freedom and justice for all

Bring cash

[saigon68]

4. Disgusting

PS--- How's the M. Jackson jury selection going?? (this is the important news folks)

[mom cat]

5. Time to break out the credit card again. Freedom is not cheap.

[natrat]

6. freedom is on the march

off a cliff

[NYC Liberal]

7. Interesting how they NEED the actually amount before

doing this search. But with Iraq...hell, just borrow, borrow, borrow!

[punpirate]

8. As I recall, this sort of thing has been...

... going on for some time--ever since Ashcroft announced that Justice would aid agencies in resisting FOIA requests, which in itself is a huge turnaround from the policy Clinton mandated.

The EPA and the DOE have been trying to charge non-profits for environmental requests, even very small groups for which exemptions to payment were made in the past. One very small, underfunded group in Colorado was aghast when they were told a couple of years ago that it would cost them ~ $4K for search and copying fees on a request similar to those made in the past at no charge.

The law allows an agency, at its discretion, to waive fees, or to reduce the standard fees; the law also gives a non-profit an appeal to fees, but it seems the Bush administration is determined to play hardball.

What irks me about this is the increasing tendency of government to charge for work products which have already been financed by the taxpayer--including the costs of declassification and review.

[baby_bear]

9. I don't disagree, punpirate, but....

Sometimes I see FOIAs that, because they are SO broad, make it easy for the federal agency(s) to stall, obfuscate and charge for time. Anyone who wants to file an effective FOIA should remember to make it very specific, and never ask for the agency to compile a list or document that doesn't already exist. That's not something required of the government under FOIA. Seems a lot of people don't know that.

You can always go back for more after the first round.

b_b

[punpirate]

10. I agree...

... but will say that the opacity of government requires some fumbling around to obtain all relevant documents. I recall one instance, for example, where a group knew that a particular company had contacts with a federal agency about licensing which the company had taken an oath to deny doing. In that instance, it would have required broad searches of phone logs, memoranda and files related to meetings to prove the perjury. The FOIA request necessarily had to take a very wide view of the kinds of documents to be searched, as well as a wide latitude in the keywords to be searched, not only to prove perjury, but to prove intent to perjure, as well.

Unfortunately, this administration is actively trying to subvert the FOIA process. That makes an FOIA request as adversarial a process as legal discovery (look, for instance, at the increase in suits necessary to obtain documents under FOIA). All the legal advice I've received on FOIA requests suggests making the request as broad as possible without having it thrown back as frivolous, simply because of delaying tactics on the part of the government. A highly specific request may get one or two documents, but doesn't reveal much in the way of supporting documentation. It takes additional, more broadly-drawn requests to get the rest of the documents, and at each stage there is a delay. These days, many agencies comply with the requirement to acknowledge receipt of the request within the required 30 days, and then let the damned thing hang for nearly forever, especially if the info required might prove embarrassing.

The more an administration attempts to cut off the flow of information, the more likely will be the necessity of causing a lot more work for public information officers and clerks of all stripes.

Cheers.

[Alizaryn]

11. Man I wish I was rich!

[Supersedeas]

13. paying for Govt access....works for Halliburton, might work for you

[struggle4progress]

14. kick

[annabanana]

15. They must have buried those records pretty damn deep!

"the cost of searching for the information"

Maybe they have to pay a whole bunch of folks to piece the shredded bits together.........