[nfbmi-talk] Fw: inescusable denials of information

Fri Nov 1 21:40:58 UTC 2013

----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Farmer, Mel (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: inescusable denials of information

These weren't closed sessions of meetings. These were public meetings of a public body.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Farmer, Mel (LARA) 
  To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
  Cc: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) ; Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
  Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:18 PM
  Subject: FW: inescusable denials of information

  November 1, 2013

  Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz

  1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd

  Mt. Morris, MI 48458

  Joe harcz at comcast.net

  RE: Violations of Open Meetings Act Et Al Assertions

  Dear Mr. Harcz:

  This notice is response to the attached copy of your October 31, 2013 email to me regarding assertions that LARA is in violation of the state's Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15. 231 et seq.,the state's FOIA, and the federal ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehab Act of 1973 regarding certain fee charges for public records. It appears that we have a different interpretation of allowable fee charges of a public body related to processing requests for public records/information under the state's Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA ). Your statement that ".under the Open Meetings Act the most an agency can charge is postage." is not entirely correct. Please be informed of the following:

  1.       Public Records Access: 

          --The state's FOIA (PA 442 of 1976) prescribes that all public bodies are subject to state's FOIA 

     with regard to access to certain public records of public bodies; thusly, subject to fee charges 

    for processing requests for certain records not exempted from disclosure by other statutes or

  regulations. 

  2.       FOIA/OMA Public Body Fee Charges:

  -- FOIA; MCL 15.234, Section 4 of the state's FOIA provides that a public body may charge a fee 

      for a public record search, examination, review and deletion and separation of exempt from 

      nonexempt material, copying, and mailing. 

  -- OMA; Regarding requests for copies of public notices, MCL 15.266, Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the 

     state's OMA provides that, (1) upon a requesting party's payment of a yearly fee of not more 

     than the reasonable estimated cost for printing and postage of such notices, a public body shall 

     send the requester copies of any notice required to be posted; and (2) shall provide a copy of 

     the public notice to any newspaper published in the state and to any radio and television station 

     in the state free of charge. Note: These particular fee charge provisions only apply to requests 

     for requests for public notices; and does not prohibit fee charges related to certain other public 

     records covered under the state's FOIA.

  --OMA; Regarding public body fee charges for public body minutes, MCL 15.269 of the state's OMA

      provides that "Copies of the minutes shall be available to the public at the reasonable estimated 

      cost for printing and copying." Thusly, this section of the OMA is consistent with MCL 15.234 of the 

     state's FOIA fee charge provisions. 

  3.       Attorney General (OAG)and Court of Appeals (COA)Rulings:

  --OAG Opinion No. 7066; An urban redevelopment corporation organized under the Urban 

      Redevelopment Corporations Law is a public body subject to the Open Meetings Act and the FOIA.

  --OAG Opinion No. 5500 (o); A school board may meet in closed session pursuant to the Open Meetings 

      Act to consider matters which are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

  --COA; Detroit News, Inc. v Detroit (1090), The minutes of a closed city council meeting held in violation 

     of the Open Meetings Act, are available upon request under the FOIA. 

  --COA; Tallman v Cheboygan Area Schools (1990), a public body may charge a fee for providing a copy of a

     public record. Section 4 of the FOIA provides a method for determining the charge for records and a public 

     body is obligated to arrive at its fees pursuant to that section.

  --COA; Perlongo v Iron River Cooperative TV (1983), a private nonstick, nonprofit cable television corporation 

     is not a "public body" for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act or the FOIA, even though it is licensed, 

     franchised, or otherwise regulated by the government.

  --COA; Local Area Watch v City of Grand Rapids (2004), Under the Open Meetings Act, minutes of closed session 

    meetings may only be disclosed by court order under that act. Where plaintiff sought disclosure of the minutes 

    under the FOIA, the minutes were still exempt under the OMA. Therefore, the defendant did not violate the 

    FOIA for withholding the minutes, where there was not a judicial determination that the minutes were subject to 

    disclosure under the OMA. Plaintiff was not entitled to FOIA costs and attorney fees, where during the litigation 

    defendant disclosed documents that were withheld before litigation. 

  Thusly, based on the above, current records illustrate that LARA is in compliance with the OMA , the FOIA, the ADA, and Section 504 0f the Rehab Act of 1973 regarding your requests for existing, nonexempt public records within LARA. As you have been previously informed, if you believe your FOIA rights have been violated or abused, you have remedial rights under MCL 15.240 of the state's FOIA. Further, you have similar remedial rights under MCL 15.271, Section 11 of the OMA.

  Sincerely,

  /S/Melvin Farmer, Jr.

  Central FOIA Coordinator

  Attachment

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 5:19 PM
  To: Farmer, Mel (LARA)
  Subject: Re: inescusable denials of information

  Mr. Farmer,

  This pertains to violations of the Michigan Open meetings Act and the general provisions of the ADA and Section 504 which relates to meeting minutes and other information related to BSBP and EOC meetings.

  Under the latter information is required to be remitted pro forma in a variety of formats let alone upon request at no charge. Under the Open Meetings Act the most an agency can charge is postage for this information.

  Yet, you and Ms. Haynes even after being informed of these things in the pubic record still are trying to charge me big time bucks for minutes and other records related to public meetings.

  Now read the OMA carefully sir as I've sent it to you and thus you were informed.

  Violations can be a misdemeanor, and thus are not only civil violations of law, but criminal in nature.

  Oh and by the way under the FOIA I should be able to subscribe to said minutes including proposed minutes and since they are produced electronically they don't cost a bloody thing.

  Warmly,

  Joe Harcz

  cc: several

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Farmer, Mel (LARA) 

    To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 

    Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:53 PM

    Subject: FW: inescusable denials of information

    Mr. Harcz, this notice is in response to the attached copy of your October 31, 2013 email wherein you make unsubstantiated claims that the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has violated your civil rights and denied your multiple requests for records/information. You also request that LARA "Simply remit requested information to me at: joeharcz at comcast.com."

    Please be informed that LARA records indicate the following:

    --LARA has granted several of your requests for existing, nonexempt public records/information within its 

      possession, subject to the payment of fee charges allowed under state and federal guidelines, including 

      the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As you have been previously informed, upon payment of 

      invoiced fee charges, the requested records will be forwarded to you.

    --In response to your October 16, 2013 email to Mr. Michael Zimmer claiming that LARA is not complying 

      with the federal ADA and Section 504 of the Rehab Act of 1973, as recently as October 21, 203, I sent you 

      an email addressing these unsubstantiated claims and; clearly Illustrating that LARA was, in-fact, in 

      compliance with applicable state and federal statutes, policies, and guidelines regarding its fee charges for 

      requests exceeding $25.00 to process. 

    --Whenever LARA has denied any of your valid requests for records, you have been informed of your remedial 

      rights provided by MCL 15.240, Section 10 of the state's FOIA, including the seeking of judicial review in 

      circuit court. 

    Sincerely,

    /S/Melvin Farmer, Jr.

    Central FOIA Coordinator 

    Attachment

    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
    Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:44 AM
    To: blind democracy List
    Cc: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Christyne.Cavataio at ed.gov; Rodgers, Edward (LARA); Zimmer, Mike (LARA)
    Subject: inescusable denials of information

    October 31 1203 to Rodgers on Access to Information

    Happy Halloween Mr. Ed,

    You and your persons under neat you have violated my civil rights over and over again in multiple requests for basic information ranging from simple meeting minutes to direct answers about how you expend federal funds.

    You have done nothing but obfuscate these requests for information and have violated my civil rights clearly established to this information which would, by the way expose you and the DSA's culpability in actual criminal activity.

    For violations of the OMA are exactly that and you sir and your minions have violated  And as licensensed lawyers you haveopenly and in direct and in documented fasion violated herein a number of codes and laws relative as to ethical and professional practiece.

    the Michigan Open Meetings Act on several ocasions.

    As did by the way Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Arwood for all acted with knoledge,forethought  and with malicious intent against my person as clearly established with citations that even arrogent n arrogent type as you and your bossess are in again documented fashion. Violating and ignoring

    Simply remit requested information to me at:

    joeharcz at comcast.net