Jim March
Member
As many of y'all know, I'm filing a big pile of Public Records Act Requests for CCW-related data. See also:
http://www.equalccw.com/prarwars.html
I'm actually encouraging EMail responses.
Got this gem today:
Waitasec...that ain't right.
Did about five minutes of googling, then drafted a response:
About half hour later...
Hey! She's dropped the "Dear". I wonder why?
(Name changed to protect the guilty mainly 'cuz I ain't got the stuff yet .)
http://www.equalccw.com/prarwars.html
I'm actually encouraging EMail responses.
Got this gem today:
Dear Mr. March,
I have 42 pages of documents ready for copying and sending to you related to your CCW public records request to xxx xxxxxx County. Please remit to me at the address below a check in the amount of $74.20 for duplication fees ($0.10 per copy and $10.00 per hour in time compiling records (7 hours)). Once I receive your check, I will forward copies to you by mail. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx, Asst. County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel, xxxxx xxxxxxx County
(phone number, address, etc.)
Waitasec...that ain't right.
Did about five minutes of googling, then drafted a response:
Ms. xxxxxx,
I have some recommended reading for you: North County Parents v. DOE, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (1994). The full text is archived at:
http://cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/north.html
Allow me to quote:
--------------------
Appellant requested copies of all decisions rendered in the last two years. Department charged $.25 per page for furnishing the copies, rendering a total bill of $126.50. This charge not only covered the cost of duplication of the documents, but also reimbursed Department for staff time involved in searching the records, reviewing records for information exempt from disclosure under law, and deleting such exempt information. Department refused to reduce this charge, and also refused to waive the charge upon the ground that "there is no legal authority to waive such charges." Appellant paid the charge and then brought this action seeking miscellaneous relief.
The trial court ruled for the Department, finding that section 6257 permits the Department to charge "the full direct costs of duplication," and that the Department's charge of $.25 per copy "was not in contravention of section 6257." The court made a second ruling pertaining to the potential of waiver of fees. It ruled that the Department had discretion to waive fees pursuant to section 6253.1, but that it was not required to waive fees and did not err in this case by refusing to consider waiver. Appellant contends both rulings are in error.
[1] We agree with appellant. Section 6257 provides that one who requests copies of public documents must pay the statutory fee for same, if there is one. The parties agree there is none prescribed in this case. Lacking a statutory fee the cost chargeable is a "fee[ ] covering direct costs of duplication." There seems to be little dispute as to what "duplicate" means. It means just what we thought it did, before looking it up: to make a copy. (See Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1968) p. 593 ["to ... reproduce exactly"]; Webster's Third New Internat. Dict. (1981) p. 702 ["to be or make a duplicate, copy or transcript ..."].) Since words of a statute are to be interpreted "according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them" (In re Alpine (1928) 203 Cal. 731, 737 [265 P. 947, 58 A.L.R. 1500]), we conclude that the cost chargeable by the Department for furnishing these copies is the cost of copying them.
--------------------
My final question: do you actually want a check for $4.20, knowing that the cost of processing the check is probably higher than that amount?
I await your response, and thank you for your time.
Jim March
About half hour later...
Yes, I actually want a check for the duplication costs. And if by that and your case reference you are refusing to reimburse the County for the compilation time of duplication, then yes, you need to send a check for $4.20.
xxxxx xxxxx
Hey! She's dropped the "Dear". I wonder why?
$4.20 on it's way.
Thanks,
Jim March
(Name changed to protect the guilty mainly 'cuz I ain't got the stuff yet .)
Last edited: