Parent Pages
Sibling Pages
Child Pages
A brief history:
This all started with a 'phone call to ask for the citation for 1410 Avondale. The Codes Enforcement people said they would not provide it without a formal Freedom of Information Act request and upfront payment of the copy charge. When John made that request, he learned that the City imposed the same requirement on Bob Gunst (a builder, and one of our neighbors) when he wanted the three page Certificate of Occupancy. More interestingly, the City provided free, faxed copies, with no written request, to a lawyer, the lawyer's secretary, and a real estate agent representing the estate that owns 1410.
All this is particularly interesting in light of the City's FOIA policy (the copy here is scanned in; if you will wait for a 100K download, we also have the image):
City of Richmond
(For Intracity Correspondence)To:
Bureau PersonnelDATE:
9/23/92FROM:
C.G. Cooper
Commissioner of BuildingsSUBJECT:
Policy Memorandum #92-9Issue: Freedom of Information Act Requests (FOIA)
Effective Date: Immediately
Background:
The Bureau is receiving many FOIA requests. The personnel must respond to these request within five (5) calendar days. Most of these requests. require a great amount of research through records and copying. The State Statute governing these requests allows the City to recover the costs of doing the research and copying. If a request involves more than one person hour and/or five copies, the following policy will apply:
Action Needed:
1. Give all FOI requests to Janet for entering into log.
2. Estimate as best you can the amount of staff hours it will require to fulfill the request and the date when the request can be fulfilled. Fill out the attached form with this information.
3, Send the requestor the completed form by certified mail and give green receipt with dated copy of completed form to Janet. This form must be mailed within 5 days of receipt of request.
4. After Janet receives a response authorizing the work, respond by doing the work necessary to fulfill the request.
5. Collect the monies due and deliver the information for the copying and work.
This Policy, with its note of irritation that citizens might impose costs upon their own government, contrasts with Council's Strategic Plan. Item II.A of the Organizational Development section of the Plan commits the City to "[e]ducate residents, businesses, employees, and local media about the City of Richmond, its accomplishments, and initiatives," and Section II.C. commits the City to "[e]ncourage positive involvement of all stakeholders . . . in City affairs and issues."
Turning back to the Bellevue situation, the Policy applies by its own terms to requests that involve more than one person hour and/or five copies. Under that policy, the Codes Enforcement staff are required to recover copy and search costs. They have been zealous in doing so. For example, when John requested on June 1, 1998 a copy of the (four page) citation on 1410 Avondale, the City demanded a written request and upfront payment of the copy charge, even though the request fell outside the Policy. Similarly, when Mr. Robert Gunst requested the (three page) Certificate of Occupancy on April 29, 1997, Codes staff similarly demanded a written request and the $0.75 copy charge up front.
In contrast, and also in connection with the property at 1410 Avondale Avenue, Codes Enforcement provided faxed copies of official records, without any written request, and without any payment either before or after the fact, as follows:
Date
Recipient
Pages
11/4/97
"Mary Beth" (secretary to Shawn Majette)
4(?)
4/22/98
Shawn Majette (attorney for Osborne estate, owner of 1410 Avondale)
3
5/21/98
Shawn Majette
5
6/11/98
Real Estate agent for "buyer"
7
Thus we see that, while ordinary taxpayers Gunst and Butcher must request in writing and pay up front, even where the Policy does not require it, the attorney for the lawbreaker gets free faxed copies, with no written request. Similarly we see the real estate agent for the "buyer" (almost certainly the seller’s agent) gets seven free, faxed copies, in direct violation of the Policy. The Policy, it seems, applies at all times to ordinary taxpayers, even when it does not apply by its own terms, but it does not apply ever to lawbreakers or their agents.
When John raised this issue with our Councilman, Bill Johnson, he promptly learned the Code Enforcement response: They have to give the citation to the violator.
A more careful review of the file discloses another situation entirely:
On 11/4/97, they issued a Notice of Violation; there is a handwritten note "Fax: Mary Beth 780-1813." Mary Beth is the secretary to Shawn Majette, the lawyer for the estate of the property owner. We can infer that the fax was the NOV. On 11/12/97, they got back the certified mail receipt for the same NOV. That is, they both mailed and faxed the NOV.
On 4/20/98 Butcher sent a 2-page fax complaining about the condition of the property. On 4/22, they faxed two pages plus a cover sheet to Shawn Majette, c/o Mary Beth. Plainly this was the complaining letter, not the NOV.
On 5/21/98, they faxed and mailed the new NOV, issued that day, to Majette. On 6/1 they told Butcher they would not fax it to him without a Freedom of Information Act request.
On 6/11/98 a handwritten note says they faxed the NOV to the real estate agent for the "buyer" (almost certainly the seller). The fax confirmation from the same date shows 7 pages to the agent. Plainly they sent the NOV plus something; we can infer the "something" was Butcher's letter. This 7-page item, sent with no payment and no written request, was above the five page limit in the Freedom of Information Act Policy, which requires a written request and up-front payment of $0.25 per page. Even if it was only NOV’s, it was at least the third copy to the same violator.
Thus we see the violator getting deluxe service, including free faxes, while the taxpayer gets jerked around. They should be giving everybody deluxe service, but if they are going to use the system to inconvenience somebody, they should do it to the scofflaw, not the citizen. Moreover, on at least two occasions, the free fax to the violator was not the violation notice; it almost certainly was Butcher's complaints. It seems that Codes Enforcement think the problem is Butcher, not the folks who were maintaining a nuisance in our neighborhood.
This is perverse. One of the goals of law enforcement is to impose the costs of the violations upon the violators. Here we have a City agency imposing costs upon taxpayers, contrary to the Strategic Plan and the agency’s own Policy, and smoothing the way for the lawbreaker, also contrary to the Policy.
More fundamentally, the folks in Codes Enforcement are acting as if they think they own the City records, and as if the taxpayers who want to see those records (that are property of the taxpayers) are a nuisance. This situation cries out for fixing.
Last updated 02/24/02
Please send questions or comments to John Butcher