The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 6766

August 19, 1993

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:

Multiple requests for the same public records and waiver of fees for indigent persons requesting records provided in reponse to prior requests.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, a public body may not deny a request simply because the requester has previously obtained the identical records under that statute.

A public body need not provide a waiver of fees to an indigent person requesting additional copies of identical documents previously provided with a waiver of fees pursuant to a prior request under the Freedom of Information act.

Senator Fred Dillingham

Representative Sal Rocca

Representative Burton Leland

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have asked whether, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801(1) et seq, a public body may deny a request for records, where the same records have been supplied to the requester in response to an earlier request. You also inquire whether a public body which grants duplicative requests must waive the $20.00 fee for an indigent person, when that person has previously received the requested records and a waiver of fees.

Addressing your first question, the FOIA is a pro-disclosure statute and, thus, requires public bodies to provide access to all information not falling within the specific exemptions found in section 13 of that statute. Swickard v Wayne County Medical Examiner, 438 Mich 536, 544; 475 NW2d 304 (1991). Since prior disclosure of a record is not a basis for exemption under section 13, a public body may not deny a request simply because the requester has previously obtained the identical records. The Legislature could, of course, amend section 13 of the FOIA to provide that subsequent requests by the same person for identical records may be denied.

It is my opinion, therefore, that under the Freedom of Information Act, a public body may not deny a request simply because the requester has previously obtained the identical records under the statute.

Your second question requires an examination of section 4(1) of the FOIA, which reads as follows:

A public body may charge a fee for providing a copy of a public record.... [A] copy of a public record shall be furnished without charge for the first $20.00 of the fee for each request, to an individual who submits an affidavit stating that the individual is then receiving public assistance or, if not receiving public assistance, stating facts showing inability to pay the cost because of indigency. [ Emphasis added.]

Essentially, you ask whether the phrase "each request," as used in this section, includes consecutive identical requests from one individual.

Research has failed to disclose any judicial authority on this issue. When the meaning of statutory language is considered, it is appropriate to look to the purpose and intent of the legislation for a reasonable construction of the language. White v Ann Arbor, 406 Mich 554, 562; 281 NW2d 283 (1979). Moreover, while the specific language used is indicative of intent, "it is not the meaning of the particular words only in the abstract or their strictly grammatical construction alone that governs." Id. The "subject matter and ... general scope of the provision" must "be considered in light of the general purpose sought to be accomplished...." Id.

The purpose of the FOIA is identified in section 1(2), which provides:

It is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process.

The mandatory waiver of the first $20.00 of any fee for persons demonstrating indigency furthers this purpose, as it promotes access to public information for all persons, regardless of their resources. Once a public body has disclosed information without charge to an indigent person, however, the public policy of the statute has been fulfilled. Requiring a public body to provide subsequent copies of information, previously provided without charge, would unreasonably burden the public body and result in unnecessary expenses to taxpayers without promoting the public purpose of the Act. There is nothing in the FOIA which indicates that indigent persons are entitled to receive multiple copies of the identical public record at government expense. Accordingly, construing the language of section 4(1) in light of the legislative purpose of the FOIA, the term "each request" does not include multiple requests for identical public records.

It is my opinion, therefore, that a public body need not provide a waiver of fees to an indigent person requesting additional copies of identical documents previously provided with a waiver of fees pursuant to a prior request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General