Do you ever wonder how your tax dollars are being spent? How much money doctors, public school employees and projects receive from the public? Transparency is a core duty of government, and Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act provides the tools you need to get accurate information about how the state functions.

The Michigan Freedom of Information Act lets people file what are commonly known as FOIA requests to gain access to public records from government agencies. The law promotes transparency, helps citizens educate themselves about issues, and sometimes makes it possible to hold government agencies accountable. The law enjoys broad bipartisan support.

Michigan’s FOIA law isn’t efficient, however, and two important reforms would benefit both Michiganders who file public records requests and government officals who must respond to these requests. State agencies should maintain request logs and make these easily available to the public.

Calls for reform are often met with objections about how changing FOIA practices could lead to the release of confidential or private information. But it is possible to significantly improve FOIA without risking privacy.

Numerous exemptions in Michigan’s FOIA law allow government offices to deny access to information under the claim that the records could be misused. Many of these exemptions, such for as Social Security Numbers, medical information, and other private information captured in government databases, are sensible. These and similar exemptions strike an appropriate balance by letting public bodies withhold sensitive portions of records while still requiring them to release information citizens need to understand the inner workings of government. 

Even though FOIA law provides reasonable exemptions, many public bodies still resist providing basic and appropriate information in response to requests. Bureaus frequently resist or charge exorbitant fees for fulfilling requests, on the grounds that responding requires a large number of hours or the work of highly paid experts.

 A public body that responds to a FOIA request must locate the relevant records, review them for sensitive information, and prepare to send those records to the person or organization that requested them. Each step takes time and money to complete, and often public officials view transparency as a burden rather than a core obligation of good governance.

FOIA law recognizes the competing needs for transparency and efficient government operations. It requires public bodies to respond to FOIA requests within five business days, but it gives them some leeway. An office may take a 10-business-day extension for complicated requests, after which it must provide the records. Alternatively, it may respond with an estimate of the time and expense needed to fulfill the request. A public office that chooses this approach does not need to do anything else until the requester pays half of the estimated request or files an appeal to challenge the fee.

Unfortunately, FOIA law rarely works as cleanly as the process would suggest. Government officials too often take the 10-day extension as a given, and even simple requests face unreasonable delays. An office also has almost unlimited discretion when estimating how long it will take to complete a request.

The Mackinac Center sent a FOIA request to the University of Michigan, asking how it spent money from a donor. The university estimated it would need 45 business days and 6.75 hours of employee time to find the answer. More than 200 days later, the university gave a fuller answer, far exceeding the estimated time required. Even then, it turned over only partial results, and it failed to reveal how it spent the donated dollars. Its delays added hundreds of dollars to the cost of the search.

Lawmakers could take many steps to improve FOIA law, but public offices themselves could help improve transparency and efficiency without making significant changes to the law or government operations.

An easy first step would be for government agencies to create a publicly available log of the FOIA requests they receive. They should already have such a log for their internal purposes, but a public log should supply information such as requests received, requests granted in full, requests granted in part, and requests denied. It also should include exemptions claimed, the cost of responding to the request, and the time required to respond. Such a log would better allow the public to understand how public servants fulfill their obligations to transparency.

The second reform would be to create and publish a searchable database of records a government entity supplied in response to past requests. Future requestors would be able to create a report showing the request, the cost of the information, and any responsive information that resulted. 

These two reforms would benefit the public by increasing transparency. They also would benefit government by reducing redundant requests. By making previously released records accessible to the public, the government could avoid having to process new FOIA requests looking for the same information. Requestors, meanwhile, could avoid weeks-long waits for already released data.

A few public bodies have undertaken these reforms. Eastern Michigan University produces a limited version of a FOIA log that shows basic information, including the number of requests the university received, how it fulfilled each request, and even how many requests it did not fulfill. More public bodies should follow Eastern’s lead.

These reforms would require only minor changes to current practices, but they would have an outsized impact on government transparency. Public bodies that wish to demonstrate their commitment to responsible and open government can voluntarily implement these reforms. These two fixes would improve the public’s understanding of how government works and increase public trust. Putting them in place would show that the state government is committed to dealing truthfully with the public.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.