Seeking a better FOIA appeal process

There seems to be a perennial legislative urge throughout the states to tinker with aging Freedom of Information statutes.  One such impulse has to do with the appeal process.  It is acknowledged by some legislators that the public needs a simpler, less expensive, more accessible means of appeal.

Some have suggested that legislatures could insert a special FOIA court or commission between the first appeal (from a bureaucrat's decision about a disclosure issue to the bureaucrat's department head) and the appeal from the department head's ruling to a court of general jurisdiction (with all the attendant rules, procedures, crowded dockets and expense).

I favor another approach.  Many states have an administrative law system wherein special judges are assigned to the various state departments to resolve controversies between the department and outside parties challenging the department's authority.  My preference is to beef up the existing administrative law apparatus to accommodate intermediate FOIA appeals, rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy.

A new FOIA intermediate appeal process should have the following characteristics:

1)  Simplicity; short forms, abbreviated procedural rules, no appearances in person (everything on paper filed by email or postal service), but paperwork may be prepared by legal counsel.  These provisions relieve both sides of the burden of traveling long distances and curtail redundant argument.

2) Short, limited procedural steps, none exceeding 30 days, including the pendency of the judge's decision.  Examples:  the requester would have 30 days from receipt of the government's denial of disclosure (including the government's failure to make a timely response to the request and/or its claim that the record doesn't exist) in which to submit the appeal form; a further 30 days for the government's response; and no more than 15 days for an optional rebuttal.

3)  The only questions to be decided by the administrative law judge would be (a) whether the requester's description of the desired record was adequate, (b) whether a government delay was justified, (c) whether assessed costs were reasonable or (d) whether the record sought is exempt in whole or part.

4)  For each question resolved in whole or part in the requester's favor, the government would be required to pay the requester $1000.

5)  No appeal to a higher court could be taken until the administrative law process was completed.  A requester would have an appeal to a higher court as of right.  The government could appeal by leave of the higher court.

Bear in mind that provisions like these are no substitute for much more fundamental changes, such as instantaneous, searchable archiving online.