Delta County commissioners uphold most prosecutor FOIA denials after hearing on data limits

Delta County commissioners on Aug. 18 considered a slate of Freedom of Information Act appeals against the county prosecuting office and voted to uphold most of the office—s denials after the prosecutor said producing the exact compiled records requested would require extensive manual work.

Prosecutor Lauren Wickman told the board the office switched case‑tracking systems on June 10, 2024, from a case‑based system to a person‑based system and that the data transfer introduced placeholders and errors that prevent reliable automated reports. "Our new system is person based... the only way we can find the individual files is by knowing the individual defendant's name," she said, describing why a requester—s broad demands for yearlong, charge‑level breakdowns would require pulling thousands of individual files.

The board conducted roll‑call votes on multiple appeals. Commissioners repeatedly moved to uphold the prosecutor—s denials, citing legal precedents and the county—s FOIA coordinator—s assessment that the office is not required to create new compilations or reports that do not already exist in a reportable format. Where denials were not upheld or votes were split, the board directed the FOIA coordinator to return to the requester and try to narrow or otherwise resolve the requests before further appeal.

Several commissioners expressed frustration and argued for more transparency. One commissioner framed dissent as a "question of conscience" and said the board represents the public and should look for ways to let residents participate in government. Public commenters pressed the board on the same theme. Remote commenter Joseph Carrera urged the board to reverse denials and "require compliance with FOIA's core obligation." Later in the meeting, Joseph Bridal told commissioners that repeated denials "create a wall of secrecy" and said, "The public cannot trust what it cannot see." The statements came during the meeting's public comment portions.

Wickman and the FOIA coordinator described practical limits. She said some information — for example, counts broken down by felony versus misdemeanor or plea agreements offered versus accepted — exists in case documents such as plea sheets or nolle prosequi orders but is not compiled into system reports that can be exported without manual review. "I could not swear under oath that those are the accurate numbers" if compiled without manual verification, she said, referring to post‑migration inconsistencies.

The board's votes upheld most of the prosecutor—s denials on the grounds that providing the exact requested compilations would require creating new records or transforming data that are not stored in reportable form. Commissioners recorded both majority votes upholding denials and several dissenting "no" votes; not all appeals were decided the same way, and the FOIA coordinator said she would reach out to requesters for clarification or narrowing when appropriate.

What happens next: The board set follow‑up steps for appeals that were not resolved by vote: the FOIA coordinator will work with the departments that responded to the requests to try to provide responsive records or narrowed reports, and petitioners retain the option to pursue circuit‑court review if they continue their appeal.