South Carolina ponders FOIA court

Earlier this month, Rep. Bill Taylor of the South Carolina House of Representatives proposed the creation of a FOIA court as a part of the state's Administrative Law Court.

Taylor has three purposes in mind.  First, he wants citizens to be able to hold state offices accountable for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.  Second, a FOIA court would give public officials an opportunity to challenge harassment by provocateurs abusing the FOIA process.  Third, a FOIA court could establish online a record of precedents to guide citizens, state officials and the court in future cases.

Another representative, Weston Newton, agreed with the concept, but questioned the additional cost of creating a new branch of the Administrative Law Court.  Also, he expressed concern about the inconvenience to citizens who would have to travel to the state capitol for court proceedings.

Newton suggested that it might be preferable for the legislature to design an expedited procedure with a reduced filing fee for application in the county circuit courts, instead of the ad law court. 

http://savannahnow.com/bluffton-news/2013-03-09/foia-court-proposed-lawmakers#.UUxUgjeRcYg

Michigan should consider a similar amendment to its Freedom of Information Act as an intermediate step for improvement of disclosure of public records.  Limited jurisdiction to hear summary proceedings to compel disclosure of government records could be conferred on Michigan's administrative law judges.

Proceedings would be initiated within 60 days of a denial (in whole or part) by filing a simple form (who, what, when, where) reiterating the original request for records, with copies of all correspondence up to that point attached.  The public official who denied the original request would have 30 days to file a statement indicating any dispute in facts.

Paperwork from both parties would be submitted by mail.  No personal appearances would be permitted unless both parties agreed.  Either party could have the paperwork prepared and submitted by legal counsel if they wished.

The ad law judge would have 30 days to rule.  If the ruling was in favor of the petitioner (in whole or part), the public official would be ordered to furnish the requested record and pay the petitioner $500, both within 30 days of the date of the order.

If the ad law judge's decision is against the petitioner in whole or part, the petitioner would have the right to file an appeal in the circuit court for his or her county of residence (with a nominal fee).

If the public official chose to contest the matter, that official's agency or department would be required to pay monthly a reasonable attorney fee, as determined by the court, to enable the petitioner/appellant to have legal counsel.

If the petitioner/appellant prevailed in circuit court in whole or part, the public official would be ordered to furnish the requested record, pay the petitioner $5000 and pay court costs as determined by the judge.

Until the Michigan Legislature requires state offices to post all records in searchable archives online from the moment those records are created or received, action like that described above is necessary to assure compliance with the act in its present (outdated) form.