-
OPINION OF THE ATTO RNE Y GENER AL
FREE DOM OF IN FORMATIO N ACT:
Calculat ing fees char geable un der th e Fr eedom of Informat ion Act
The Fr eedom of Informat ion Act perm its a public body to char ge a fee for th e actua l incrementa l cos t of duplicat ing or publis hing a recor d, including labor directly attr ibuta ble to those ta sks , even when th e labor is perform ed by a public employee dur ing business hour s an d does not add extra cos ts to th e public body's norma l budget.
Und er section 4(3) of th e Fr eedom of Informat ion Act, a public body ma y not char ge a fee for th e cos t of its search, exam inat ion, review, an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt informat ion, un less failur e to char ge a fee would res ult in unr easona bly high cos ts to th e public body. This fee limitat ion, howeve r, does not apply to a public body's cos ts incurr ed in th e necess ar y copyi ng or publicat ion of a public recor d for inspection, or for providing a copy of a public record an d ma ili ng th e copy.
The phra se "unr easona bly high cos ts," as used in section 4(3) of th e Fr eedom of Informat ion Act prohibi ts a public body from char ging a fee for th e cos ts of search, exam inat ion, review, an d deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt informat ion un less th e cos ts incurr ed by a public body for those activities in th e part icular instan ce would be excessive an d beyond th e norma l or usua l amount for those services.
Opi nion No. 7083 J un e 7, 2001
Honora ble Gild a Z. J acobs Stat e Rep rese ntat ive
The Capitol
Lan sing, MI 48913
You ha ve asked thr ee ques tions regar ding a public body's auth ority to char ge a fee for providing public recor ds un der Michigan's Fr eedom of Informat ion Act.
The Fr eedom of Informat ion Act (FOIA), 1976 PA 442 , MCL 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq, ent itles a person to inspect, copy, or receive copie s of certa in public recor ds
of public bodies. The pur pose an d scope of th e FOIA ar e delineat ed in th e public policy stat ement set forth in section 1(2).
[A]ll persons . . . ar e ent itled to full an d com plete in format ion regar ding th e a ffa irs of governm ent an d th e officia l acts of th ose who represe nt th em as public officia ls an d public employees . . . so that th ey ma y fully part icipat e in th e dem ocrat ic pr ocess .
Your specific questions con cern relevant port ions of section 4 of th e FOIA, which provide as follows :
(1) A public body ma y char ge a fee for a public recor d sear ch, th e necess ar y copyin g of a public recor d for inspe ct ion, or for providing a copy of a public recor d. Subject to subsections (3) an d (4), th e fee sha ll be limited to actua l ma iling cost s, an d to th e actua l incrementa l cost of duplicat ion or publicat ion including labor, th e cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion as provided in section 14. . . .
* * *
(3) In calculat ing th e cost of labor incurr ed in duplicat ion an d ma iling an d th e cost of exam inat ion, review , sep arat ion, an d deletion un der subsection (1), a public body ma y not char ge more than th e hour ly wage of th e lowes t paid public body employee capable of retr ieving th e in format ion necess ar y to com ply with a request un der th is act. . . . A fee sha ll not be char ged for th e cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion as provided in section 14 un less fa ilur e to char ge a fee would result in unr easona bly high cost s to th e public body becau se of th e natur e of th e request in th e part icular instan ce, an d th e public body spe cifically ident ifies th e natur e of th ese unr easona bly high cost s. A public body sha ll esta blish an d publish pr oced ur es an d guidelines to implement th is subsection.
Your fir st question asks wheth er th e FOIA perm it s a public body to char ge a fee for th e actua l incrementa l cost of duplicat ing or publishing a recor d, including labor directly attr ibuta ble to th ose ta sks , even when th e labor is per form ed by a public employee dur ing business hour s an d does not add extra cost s to th e public body's norma l budget.
The second sent ence of section 4(1) of th e FOIA perm it s th e public body to char ge a fee as follows :
Subject to subsections (3) an d (4), th e fee sha ll be limited to actual m aili ng costs , an d to th e actual increm ental cost of du plication or publication includ ing labor, th e cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion as provided in section 14. [Em pha sis added .]
The first sent ence of section 4(3) specifies th e meth od for calculat ing th e cost of labor as follows :
In calculat ing th e cost of labor incurr ed in duplicat ion an d ma iling an d th e cost of exam inat ion, review , sep arat ion, an d deletion un der subsection (1), a public
body ma y not char ge more than th e hour ly wage of th e lowes t paid public body employee capable of retr ieving th e in format ion necess ar y to com ply with a request un der th is act.
The Legisl atur e ha s not defined th e term "incrementa l" as used in section 4. In th e abse nce of an y report ed Michigan appe llat e court decision on th e question, it is appropriat e to rely upon dictionar y definitions. People v Denio, 454 Mich 691 , 699 ; 564 NW2d 13 (1997 ). According to th e Am erican Heritag e College Dictionary, Th ird Ed iti on (2000 ), at p 689 , th e term "incrementa l" is th e adjectival form of th e noun "increment " which is defined as:
1. The pr ocess of increasing in num ber, size, quant ity, or extent . 2. Someth ing added or gained. 3. A slight , oft en bar ely perceptible au gmentat ion. 4. One of a series of regular additions or contr ibut ions . . . .
The term "increment " is synonymous with "increase." Id . See also, Roget's II Th e N ew Th esaurus, Th ird Ed iti on (1995 ), at p 521 .
The term "actua l incrementa l cost " as used in section 4(1) directly modifies only th e specific activities of "duplicat ion or publicat ion [of public recor ds] including labor." Thu s, a plain reading of th is provision indicat es that a public body ma y char ge for all actua l, additiona l cost s, including labor, that ar e directly attr ibuta ble to th e specific ta sks of copyin g or publishing a public recor d for th e requester.
The term "actua l incrementa l cost " is not used to modify or limit th e cost s attr ibuta ble to th e sep arat ely listed activities "sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion." These latt er ta sks , however, ar e subject to th e more restr ictive limitat ion, described in section 4(3), that prohibits a public body from char ging for th ose cost s at all un less failur e to do so would result in "unr easona bly high cost s to th e public body."
This int erpretat ion of section 4(1) of th e FOIA is con sistent with it s legislat ive history. In it s origina l form as 1976 HB 6085 , th e allowable cost s were restr icted to th e actua l incrementa l cost of duplicat ion or publicat ion of th e requested recor d. House Legisl at ive Ana lysis, HB 6085 , Sep tember 10, 1976 , an d Sep tember 21, 1976 . The Legisl atur e am ended th e substitut e to HB 6085 proposed section 4(1) to also allow char ges for th e "cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion" but with out repe at ing th e term "actua l incrementa l cost " as applied to th e latt er char ges. 1976 J ourna l of th e House 3210 -3211 . House Legisl at ive Ana lysis, HB 6085 , December 10, 1976 .
Your inquiry suggests that th e term "actua l incrementa l cost " should be read as prohibiting a public body from char ging for an y of it s costs in copying or publishing a public recor d un less th e cost s ar e "incrementa l" to (an d thu s add to or increase) th e public body's existing budget for such cost s. Und er such a con stru ct ion, a public body would be perm itt ed to char ge for th e labor involved in copying a public record only if it were necess ar y to pay overt ime or hire additiona l personn el to per form th e copyin g work on a spe cific FOIA request. There is noth ing in th e lan gua ge of section 4 of th e FOIA, or in th e four legislat ive
ana lyses of HB 6085 an d it s House substitut e, to suggest that th e Legisl atur e int ended such a restr ictive reading. What th e Legisl atur e likely meant by th e term "incrementa l" was that cost ass ociat ed with mak ing copies for th e FOIA requester, as opposed to cost s ass ociat ed with copies for th e public agency's int erna l pur poses . The term "actua l incrementa l cost " in th e statut e directly modifies th e specified activities of duplicat ing or publishing th e requested public recor d. Neith er th e statut e nor th e legislat ive history mak e an y reference to a public body's budget. Moreover, such a reading would almost certa inly be count er-productive an d even des tru ctive to th e public policy of th e FOIA. If a public body were perm itt ed to char ge only for FOIA expe nses that ar e out side it s existing budget, it would ha ve a str ong incent ive to refra in from budgeting an y resour ces for FOIA requests in order to assur e that all cost s incurr ed in han dling FOIA requests would be "incrementa l" to it s existing budget an d th erefor e char geable to th e requester. This would mak e it far more difficu lt for public bodies to promptly an d efficient ly com ply with FOIA requests in th e mann er cont emplat ed by th e Act .
In addition, th e FOIA ha s been part of Michigan law for over 24 year s, an d public bodies ha ve in cor porat ed pr oced ur es an d personn el int o th eir budgets dur ing that t ime in order to com ply with th e FOIA. To impose on th ose public bodies now th e requirement that th ey somehow ident ify th eir "actua l incrementa l cost s" as beyond norma l operat iona l cost s would in effect prohibit th e public bodies from char ging an yth ing for copyin g cost s. The Legisl atur e clear ly did not int end that result. Merely becau se a public body's duplicat ing costs in complying with FOIA requests ha ve become rout ine does not mean th ey ar e an y less "actua l."
The FOIA, of cour se, does not require a public body to char ge for th e copying of public recor ds. The Act does, however, expressly perm it such char ges, subject to specific limitat ions, an d att empts to str ike an appropriat e balan ce between th e cost s to th e public body an d th e public int erest in en coura ging disclosur e:
The FOIA clear ly provides a meth od for determ ining th e char ge for records. It is incum bent on a public body, if it ch ooses to exercise it s legislat ively grant ed right to char ge a fee for providing a copy of a public recor d, to com ply with th e legislat ive directive on how to char ge. The statut e cont emplat es only a reimbur sement to th e public body for th e cost incurr ed in honoring a given request -- noth ing more, noth ing less. [T allm an v Cheboygan Area S chools, 183 Mich App 123 , 130 ; 454 NW2d 171 (1990 ).]
As stat ed in OAG, 1999 -2000 , No 7017 , p 27 (May 13, 1999 ), "[i]n oth er words, a public body is not to mak e a pr ofit on in format ion retr ieval, nor is it to su ffer a loss."
It is my opinion, th erefor e, in an swer to your fir st question, that th e Fr eedom of In format ion Act perm it s a public body to char ge a fee for th e actua l incrementa l cost of duplicat ing or publishing a recor d, including labor directly attr ibuta ble to th ose ta sks , even when th e labor is per form ed by a public employee dur ing business hour s an d does not add extra cost s to th e public body's norma l budget.
Your se con d question asks wheth er section 4(3) of th e FOIA limits th e char ging of all labor cost s or only th ose labor cost s ass ociat ed with th e sear ch, exam inat ion, review , deletion, an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion.
The fourth sent ence of section 4(3) of th e FOIA limits certa in char geable fees as follows:
A fee shall not be charged for th e cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion as provided in section 14 un less fail ure to charge a fee would result in un reasonably high costs to the public body becau se of th e natur e of th e request in th e part icular instan ce, an d th e public body spe cifically ident ifies th e natur e of th ese unr easona bly high cost s. [Em pha sis added .]
By it s express term s, th e above-quoted sent ence imposes a str ict limitat ion on char ging a fee to recover cost s only for th e specified ta sks of "sear ch, exam inat ion, review , deletion an d sep arat ion" un der section 4(1). The Legisl atur e ha s not chosen to similar ly limit th e char ging of labor fees for th e sep arat e ta sks of ma iling, necess ar y duplicat ion for inspection, or for providing a copy of th e recor d.
A stu dy of th e legislat ive history of th is port ion of section 4(3) of th e FOIA indicat es that it was origina lly ena cted with out chan ge in 1976 . Alth ough th is subse ct ion was am ended by 1988 PA 99, an d by 1996 PA 553 , th e Legisl atur e ha s ma de no chan ges to it s fourth sent ence.
Section 4(1), as origina lly ena cted, only provided that "[a ] public body ma y char ge a fee for providing a copy of a public recor d." Based on that lan gua ge, both OAG, 1979 -1980 , No 5500 , pp 255 , 268 (J uly 23, 1979 ), an d Cashel v Regents of the Un iv of Michigan , 141 Mich App 541 , 548 ; 367 NW2d 841 (1985 ), con cluded that un der section 4(1) th ere was no auth ority to char ge a fee un less th e requester asked for a copy of th e docum ent .
Section 4(1), however, was lat er am ended by 1996 PA 553 , to include express auth ority to "char ge a fee for . . . th e necess ar y copyin g of a public recor d for inspection." That am endment added to th e list of ta sks for which a public body ma y char ge a fee th e cost s incurr ed in prepar ing in format ion for insp ection . The am endment did not alter th e preexis t ing auth ority to char ge for labor cost s incurr ed in mak ing copies, publicat ion, or ma iling. Likewise , it did not alter th e lan gua ge which limited fees for th e ta sks of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , deletion, an d sep arat ion un der section 4(1).
Where a requester asks only to inspe ct a public recor d, th e imposition of fees for mak ing th e recor d available is addressed in sections 3(1), 3(3), an d 4(1) of th e FOIA. Section 3(1) provides, in pert inent part , that "a person ha s a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of th e requested public recor d of th e public body." Section 3(3), which addresses inspecting public recor ds, provides as follows :
A public body sha ll furn ish a requesting person a reasona ble opportun ity for inspe ct ion an d exam inat ion of it s public recor ds, an d sha ll furn ish reasona ble
facilities for mak ing memoran da or abstra cts from it s public recor ds dur ing th e usua l business hour s. A public body ma y mak e reasona ble ru les necess ar y to protect it s public recor ds an d to prevent excessive an d unr easona ble int erference with th e dischar ge of it s fun ctions. A public body sha ll protect public recor ds from loss, unauth orized alterat ion, mut ilat ion, or des tru ct ion.
One exam ple of necess ar y copyin g for inspe ct ion would be to com ply with th e requirement s of section 14(1) con cern ing sep arat ing exempt an d nonexempt in format ion as follows:
If a public recor d conta ins mat erial which is not exempt un der section 13, as well as mat erial which is exempt from disclosur e un der section 13, th e public body sha ll sep arat e th e exempt an d nonexempt mat erial an d mak e th e nonexempt mat erial available for exam ination an d copyin g. [Em pha sis added .]
Thu s, it ma y be necess ar y to copy th e public recor d befor e th e exempt an d nonexempt mat erial is sep arat ed so that th e nonexempt mat erial ma y be ma de available for exam inat ion or inspe ct ion. Anoth er exam ple of necess ar y copyin g to prepar e th e public recor d for inspection would be where a public body mu st com ply with FOIA section 3(3) requiring a public body to protect public recor ds from loss, unauth orized alterat ion, mut ilat ion, or des tru ct ion. Thu s, it ma y be necess ar y to copy th e origina l recor d prior to it s inspection in order to protect it s int egrity. And as to recor ds on com put ers, micr ofilm , or microfiche, mak ing a copy for exam inat ion ma y be more reasona ble than to ha ve an employee prese nt dur ing th e exam inat ion in order to protect th e int egrity of th e recor ds.
In Cashel, supra , th e Michigan Court of Appe als a ffirm ed th e lower court 's imposition of labor cost s on th e inspecting part y after a two-wee k period of inspection. In reaching that result, th e court relied upon a requirement of reasona bleness derived from section 3(2) of th e FOIA.1 If th e preparat ion of th e public recor d for inspection, however, involves an y of th e ta sks of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , deletion, an d sep arat ion specified in section 4(1), section 4(3) imposes a str ict limitat ion on char ging a fee to recover th ese cost s.
It is my opinion, th erefor e, in an swer to your se con d question, that un der section 4(3) of th e FOIA, a public body ma y not char ge a fee for th e cost of it s sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion un less fa ilur e to char ge a fee would result in unr easona bly high cost s to th e public body. This fee limitat ion, however, does not apply to a public body's cost s incurr ed in th e necess ar y copyin g or publicat ion of a public recor d for inspe ct ion, or for providing a copy of a public record an d ma iling th e copy.
1 What was section 3(2) is now section 3(3) of th e FOIA, as am ended by 1996 PA 553 .
Your th ird question asks for an int erpretat ion of th e phra se "unr easona bly high cost s" as used in section 4(3) of th e FOIA.
The fourth sent ence of section 4(3), which limits th e auth ority of public bodies to char ge fees for furn ishing in format ion to requesters, provides as follows :
A fee sha ll not be char ged for th e cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion as provided in section 14 un less fa ilur e to char ge a fee would result in un reasonably high costs to th e public body becau se of th e natur e of th e request in th e part icular instan ce, an d th e public body spe cifically ident ifies th e natur e of th ese unr easona bly high cost s. [Em pha sis added .]
House Legisl at ive Ana lysis, HB 6085 , December 10, 1976 , explains th e pur pose of th is fee limitat ion provision.
[The public bodies] would not be allowed to char ge for th e cost of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , deletion, or th e sep arat ion of exempt from nonexemption in format ion un less th e followin g con ditions held:
1) Fa ilur e to char ge a fee would result in unr easona bly high cost s to th e public body becau se of th e natur e of th e part icular request.
2) The public body spe cifically ident ified th e natur e of th ese unr easona bly high cost s.
Alth ough section 4(3) was am ended by 1988 PA 99 an d 1996 PA 553 , th e Legislatur e ma de no chan ge in th is limitat ion on a public body's auth ority to impose certa in char ges on a person requesting in format ion.
In section 4(3), th e Legisl atur e ha s expressly directed a public body to spe cifically ident ify th e natur e of it s cost s att endant to a part icular request befor e th e public body ma y be reimbur sed . Therefor e, wheth er a part icular char ge reflects reimbur sement of an unr easona bly high cost to th e public body mu st be ident ified an d determ ined on a case-by- case basis.
The Legis latur e ha s not defined th e phra se "unr easona bly high cost s" as used in section 4(3). No report ed Michigan court decisions int erpret that specific phra se. The Michigan Supreme Court ha s, however, defined th e term "unr easona ble" to mean "excessive , beyond a norma l or proper limit." Peopl e v Brook s, 405 Mich 225 , 251 ; 274 NW2d 430 (1979 ). Court s give th e words used in a statut e th eir plain an d ordinar y mean ing. People v Morey, 461 Mich 325 , 330 ; 603 NW2d 250 (1999 ). To determ ine th e ordinar y mean ing of words used in a statut e, relian ce upon dictionar y definitions is appropriat e. Id ., 461 Mich at 330 -331 . The Am erican Heritag e College Dictionary, Th ird Ed iti on , at p 640 , defines th e word "high" to include th e followin g: "Great er than usua l or expe cted, as in quant ity, ma gnitu de, cost , or degree."
In section 4(3) of th e FOIA, th e Legisl atur e ha s provided , as th e norm , that no fee for labor cost s for th e sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d th e deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt informat ion ma y be char ged by a public body, un less th e norm is exceeded when th e pr ocessi ng of a part icular request for in format ion would result in unr easona bly high cost s to th e public body. The Legisl atur e did not impose a fixed stan dar d for each public body to apply in mak ing a determ inat ion. The more flexible stan dar d of un reasonably high costs ma y reflect th e realizat ion that th e more than 10,000 Michigan public bodies that ar e subject to th e FOIA var y from lar ge dep artm ent s of stat e governm ent with th ousan ds of employees to sma ll villages with only a few employees. In addition, th e un reasonably high costs stan dar d is flexible enough to also reflect both th e volum e an d th e com plexity of FOIA requests that a public body receives , as well as each public body's part icular fiscal con dition. The phra se in th e sent ence referr ing to "th e natur e of th e request in th e part icular instan ce" is a clear indicat ion of legislat ive int ent that th e determ inat ion of un reasonably high costs mu st be ma de on a case-by-ca se basis.
A few exam ples illustrat e th e applicat ion of FOIA section 4(3). If a FOIA request is ma de for an easily ident ified docum ent con sisting of a few stan dar d size pages, labor for th e sear ch, exam inat ion, an d mak ing deletions un der th e FOIA would genera lly not prese nt a case of unr easona bly high costs to a public body. In such a case, th e Legisl atur e ha s directed that no char ge be imposed . On th e oth er han d, if a request is ma de for "an y an d all" docum ent s as to a part icular subject, requires a sear ch of man y boxes of recor ds, including review for exempt mat erial which mu st be or ma y be deleted un der section 13 of th e FOIA, an d if that sear ch, exam inat ion, an d review involves num erous hour s of labor, a public body might well be justified in imposing char ges to avoid th e un reasonably high cost ar ising from th e natur e of that part icular request.
The last sent ence of section 4(3) of th e FOIA directs a public body to esta blish an d publish pr oced ur es an d guidelines to implement th is subse ct ion. Thu s, th e Legisl atur e ha s directed each public body to esta blish guidelines implement ing section 4(3) regar ding th e char ging of fees . These guidelines would set forth th e stan dar ds for calculat ing labor cost s for th e ta sks specified in th e fourth sent ence of section 4(3) for th e determ inat ion, on a case- by-ca se basis, when fa ilur e to char ge a fee would result in "unr easona bly high cost s to th e public body" in resp onding to a part icular request.
It is my opinion, th erefor e, in an swer to your th ird question, that th e phra se "unr easona bly high cost s" as used in section 4(3) of th e Fr eed om of In format ion Act prohibits a public body from char ging a fee for th e cost s of sear ch, exam inat ion, review , an d deletion an d sep arat ion of exempt from nonexempt in format ion un less th e cost s incurr ed by a public body for th ose activities in th e part icular instan ce would be excessive an d beyond th e norma l or usua l am ount for th ose services.
J ENN IFE R M. GRANH OLM
Att orn ey Genera l
