What were they thinking? – FOIA# 100505-001
Much has been said by over the past few months by Dr. Clay and others about the perceived high cost of administration resources and attorneys fees relating to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As I appear to be the most prolific FOIA requester in this district, I assume EMSD#63 leadership, Mr. Steven Levy and Ms. Jane Wojtkiewicz in particular, were specifically upset with the need for attorney assistance relating to one of my FOIA requests at the August 7th Board Meeting.
Not all FOIA requests require attorney assistance. You will see later in this posting that attorney assistance for FOIA requests generally represents a small part of this districts need for legal assistance. However, on May 5, 2010 something changed.
Background.
Apparently, the Administration panicked when presented with FOIA #100505-001, a standard request asking for documents relating to the one-year $108,000 unwritten, unpublicized, part-time employee/consultant/mentoring agreement between then recently retired Dr. Kathleen Williams and the District.
Based on EMSD#63’s 2009-2010 Budget documents, Dr. Williams final salary amount as Superintendent was $258,610 plus additional unpaid redeemable vacation days.
So what was the question that caused all this fuss?
FOIA #100505-001 - Consulting Agreement and Support Documents
The district responded with a large box full of printed emails. This 1,287 page “data bump” contained not only the email document sent or received by Dr. Williams while performing her contracted activities but also their attachments; some of them redundant and quite long. I can only guess why they chose to respond in this way, considering the District’s ability to copy and send similar documents in PDF format attached to one or more emails. A technique, by the way, they have successfully used often.
| Response Document Menu |
| Part 1 of 4 Page: 0001-0333 |
| Part 2 of 4 Page: 0334-0731 |
| Part 3 of 4 Page: 0732-1071 |
| Part 4 of 4 Page: 1072-1287 |
Note: I have split this file into four parts for your convenience.
The last 27 pages of the response contained the time-slip and payroll information. These facts were needed to put the rest of the documentation into perspective.
Dr. Williams Complete Contract Time Sheets & Payment Info
As you probably saw on pages 31-32 of 34, Dr. Williams was paid $900.00 for her 05/17/2010 efforts in assisting her former subordinates with their FOIA response.
Seeing, in my opinion, the over-the-top reaction and especially the extraordinary amount of Scariano, Himes and Petrarca attorney support service hours used to fulfill my request, I submitted another FOIA document to discover the actual legal fees associated with all my FOIA requests since 2004 and specifically the legal fees associated with FOIA #100505-001.
Attorney Invoices All Butterly FOIA Requests Since 2004
As you can see, the information presented included additional redacted attorney billings for services not related to FOIA requests. After a few minutes work, I created the report below. The report displays only the SH&P time and billed amounts associated with FOIA # 100505-001.
So, how does FOIA #100505-001’s generated legal bill compare to EMSD#63’s/Scariano, Himes and Petrarca monthly billing?
EMSD#63’s monthly Accounts Payable payments to SH&P were retrieved from the district’s website and are presented below.
Scariano Himes and Petrarca Legal Fee Running Report
Conclusion
First, the SH&P bill associated with FOIA # 100505-001, when compared to other FOIA generated attorney fees was extraordinarily high. The reason being the enormous number of unnecessary and redundant documents scrutinized by SH&P. A bit of common-sense based triage would have gone a long way to minimize this problem.
Second, I don’t wish to be unreasonable here, but it seems to me that the Board and Administration needs to look in the mirror before they start whining about stakeholder generated FOIA requests. Had the Board acted in a transparent way, that is, HAD IT INFORMED THE PUBLIC OF IT’S INTENTION to hire Dr. Williams PRIOR TO ACTUALLY DOING IT and if it had done so IN PUBLIC AT THE BOARD MEETING AS A SEPERATE AGENDA ITEM, there would have been no surprise, no question and therefore no FOIA requests.
Dr. Williams, Dr. Clay and Ms. Glickman are veteran FOIA responders.
What were these people thinking?
Finally, many questions remain regarding the utilization of, or even the need for Dr. Williams consulting services.
I have no further comment or opinion on this subject at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment