Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foia Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livingston County board reverses parts of FOIA denial but upholds estimated fee after resident's appeal
Summary
Resident Mary Anne Lamkin told the board she was repeatedly ignored when seeking public records and accused county prosecutors of misconduct; legal counsel recommended partially reversing the denial but upholding the county's fee estimate, and the board approved that recommendation with one abstention.
Mary Anne Lamkin of Hamburg Township told the Livingston County Board of Commissioners on the public record that she received no replies to repeated FOIA requests, accused local prosecutors of filing improper felony charges against her, and asked the board to compel disclosure of email and personnel records.
Legal counsel, speaking for the FOIA coordinator, told the board the county initially estimated fees and requested a good-faith deposit, that the county did not provide a timely determination within five business days nor give notice of a 10-business-day extension, and that the county later granted some items and denied others only after the appeal was filed. Counsel cited the county’s procedures and the FOIA fee provisions in MCL 15.234 as the basis for the fee estimate, and gave an example calculation listing two hours of IT time at $48.48 per hour (total $96.96) with a required half deposit of $48.48.
Lamkin said she provided the board a packet documenting her communications with the FOIA coordinator and disputed the fee calculation, calling it excessive and asserting the county’s itemization did not meet the statutory intent to prevent fee abuse. She also urged the board to produce emails and budget records related to hiring a volunteer or special prosecutor and asked why certain invoices were treated as sufficient production rather than a complete itemized search.
After hearing from Lamkin and allowing one question per commissioner, Commissioner Sample moved to "reverse the denial in part and uphold the denial in part" and to "uphold the fee and issue a determination of a specific basis that supports the remaining fee." The motion was supported and debated briefly; Commissioner Drake requested and was permitted to abstain under stated rules of professional responsibility. The board approved the motion with eight votes in favor and one abstention by Commissioner Drake.
The decision means the board will reverse the county’s implicit denial for specific items identified in the appeal (counsel recommended items 1 and 4–8 be reversed) and will uphold certified nonexistence for items the county says do not exist (items 2 and 3), while leaving the county's fee estimate in place pending the required certification described in the determination.
The board did not rule at the meeting on whether the fee amount itself should be reduced or waived; the action documented a decision to uphold the county’s certified fee calculation and to reverse certain implicit denials so those records will be produced subject to the fee determination.
The board’s action followed the process outlined by counsel under the county procedure identified in the record (MCO 15.234) and the state FOIA statute cited in the presentation (MCL 15.234). Lamkin said she intends to pursue further legal remedies if she believes the board’s action does not adequately address her concerns.
