CADILLAC
Freedom of Information Act
Public Records Request
a
Nae Mow
Adres
Phowe_ Fax —
situ Lok Wye lp.
Pablic Records Requested
Al teyt ond omail communiey tra ar
Loon Mo “eotia and members
of He Udy Cones rom sJanuacu 20
do qwerenk E
Reason For Request
rer)
Page 60f7
RECEIVED ut = 1 myCADILLAC
MICHIGAN
WON ae Sale, Michie 6
csi nt
Sly 9,2014
Liz MacCord
‘Dear Ms, MacCord:
Re: Freedom of Information Act
Deposit Required
‘The City of Cadillac received your Freedom of Information Act (*FOIA") request on July 1,
2014, requesting a copy of “all text and e-mail communications between Mareus Peceia and
members of the City Council between January 2013 and presen.”
“The City has determined that the total good faith esimate of the cost of processing this request
‘will be $382.00. The City will process your request after you have paid a deposit of $191.00
(which is 4 the total estimated costs, as provided in Section 4(2) of the Michigan Freedom of
Information Act. MCL 15.2342). Please be advised that the City will be entitled to 2 10
business day extension, as permitied by the FOIA, after the deposit is paid in order to have
sufficient time to collect and review the documents.
‘Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me,
Sincerely,
Bardia (noon
Snir Wasson
FOIA CordeCADILLAC
MIctIGAN
ep mrrsiaias cane
IMTS fe 7ST
"wrmadncnst
July 21,2014
Liz MacCord
esr Ms. MacCord
Re: Freedom of Information Act
Extension
‘The City of Cadillac received your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA) request on July 1,
2014, requesting a copy of “sll text and e-mail communications between Marcus Peccia and
members ofthe City Council between January 2013 and present” By letter dated July 9, 2014,
the City requested a deposit of $191.00 (which is % the total estimated costs) and a deposit of
$8200 was paid on July 11, 2014,
‘This leter serves as notice in accordance with §5(2)(¢) of the Freedom of Information Act that
the City of Cadillac is extending by 10 business day the time to respond to this request in order
to ave adequate time to search for and review documents in order to respond to the request
‘The City will respond to your request by July 25, 2014 by doing one of the following: (1)
sgantng the request, (2) isting a writen notice denying the request, or () granting the request
{i part and issuing «wien notice denying the request part.
‘Should you have any questions, please fel flee to eontact me
Sandra L. Wassem
FOIA CoordinatorCADILLAC
MICHIGAN
ache oe t
SHIR oe BETSATS
eewcadneiet
July 25, 2014
Liz MacCord
ear Ms, MacCord
Re: Freodom of Information Act
Extension,
The City of Cacilla, thtough its attorney Anne Seuryack, rcosived your voicemail in which you
agreed to extend the City’s tine to respond to your FOIA request. Due tothe nature and volume
othe request and the vacation of the City Manager, the City had requested an extension until at
Jeast August 12,2014, Thank you for agreeing to that extension,
In addition, we understand you have modified your request to ask for documents beginning
August 1, 2013 and have requested that ae City not provide you with any attachments. Please
lets know if tis is not your understanding,
Thank you very much for your cooperation with the City. Should you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me
Sincerely,
Sarda 8 dian
Senda. Wasson
FOIA CoaneCADILLAC
MICHIGAN
0 Nona Sada Mihi 6
DLTSDISIe te 2307788755
August 12,2014
Liz MacCord
Dear Ms, MacCord
Re
Freedom of Information Act
Extension
‘The City of Cadillac received your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request on July 1,
2014 (Which was subsequently modified) requesting a copy of all text and e-mail
‘communications between Marcus Peocia and members of the City Council between August 2013
snd present, not including sny attachments. Your request has been granted in part and denied in
partas follows,
The City has granted your request for non-exempt public records thst respond to your request.
However, public records or portions of public records that you have requested contain
inforration that is
1
empt from disclosure as fallow:
Certain correspondence or portions of correspondence you requested were subject
to altomey-client privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure under Section
13()(g) of the FOIA, MCL 15.243(1)).
‘The City bas also exempted ceriin protected health information pursuant to
Section 13(1}0) that permits the City to exempt “medical, counseling, ot
psychological facts or evaluations conceming an individual if the individuals
identity would be revealed by a disclosure of those facts or evaluation, inluding
protected healt information.” MCL 15.2431).
Also, certain documents, including documents included as attachments to emails
faze exempt from disclosure under Section 13(1)(m) of the FOIA. because the
{documents are of an advisory nature, cover other than purely factual materials and
‘are preliminary 10 a final agency determination of policy or action. Due to
need for frank advice and consultation about employment-elated matters,
collective bargaining and other issues before council, the public interest in
encouraging frank communication clearly outweighs the public interest in
iselosure inthis ease.4. Also, certain information about department policies and procedures has been
redacted because it would disclose operational instructions for law enforcement
officers or agents and reveal the contents of staff manuals provided for law
tnforeement officers or agents. Section 13(1\(0}(v) and (i). In this case, the City
has determined thatthe public intrest in disclosure does not outweigh the public
interest in nondisclosure.
5. The documents contain references to material contained in closed session
minutes. Closed session minutes are exempt ftom disclosure pursuant to the
‘Open Meetings Act and, therefore, ae exempt by statute under the FOIA. MCL
15.243(1X6).
6. Certain documents or portions of documents are exempt from disclosure because
they fall under the attomey work-product privilege, pursuant to Michigan Court
Rule 2,302(B\3)(a). Therefore, the documents of portions of documents are
exempt ftom disclosure under the FOIA through subsection 13(1)(h). Section
13(2(4) exempts from disclosure information or records subject to a privilege
recognized by statute or court rule, MCL 15.243(1)().
7. Certain documents or portions of documents are also exempt because they involve
‘confidential information, intemal investigations, and, therefore, pat of the law
‘enforcement personnel records that is exempt pursuant to 15.243(1}(3}(),
‘Because release of such persoanel records would hinder the City's ability to hire,
‘arm and conduct investigations of law enforcement officers, the public interest in
disclosure in this instance does not outweigh the public interest in nondisclosure
in this instance
The exempt information has aot been included or has been redacted from the non-exempt
information pursuant to Section 14 of the FOIA. MCL 15.244.
‘You have already paid a deposit in the amount of $200.00. As you know your request was
voluminous and involved reviewing thousands of pages of documents. As a result, please be
advised thatthe City is sill in the process of preparing the documents for disclosure. We will
contact you as soon as possible regarding the total fee and to confirm when the documents are
ready to be picked up,
ince your request has been denied in part, you have the right to (1) submit tthe head ofthe
public body a written appeal that specifically states the word “appeal” and identifies the reason
‘or reasons forthe reversal of the disclosure denial or (2) seek judicial review of this decision, as
‘Stated in Section 10 of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.240 (see attachment),
Further, you have the right to seek attorney fees and damages as provided in Section 10 (see
attachment) if the court determines thatthe City has not complied with this seotion and orders
disclosure of all ora portion a the public record,‘Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (231) 775-0181
Sincerely,
arta hes,
Sandra Wasson
Freedom of Information Act Coordinator
EnclosureFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (EXCERPT)
Met ef 1976
415.240 Options by reauosting person; appeal orders: venue; de novo proceeding; burden of
‘proof private view of public record; contempt, assignment of action or appeal for hearing,
fat. or argument atlomays" fees, costs, and dlsbursoments; assessment of award
Garages.
See Tb 1) If plc oy makes » al decrmination 1 dey allo ¢poroe of & rages, the
rsussing pein sy do of allowing tht ber oon
Te) Soir ote tend of te pli dy wn spa! hat speicaly eats he word “spel” a
ee te etan or ease for ever fe ena
(@) Cammance ax won ie Sul cour to compel he pb bod dos of te public emis
‘win AD aye aes publica fin eenatn f deey#eUSL
(2) Wie Te days ear sevice «ween spel usu aeons) the bata pbc bly
stall Tf he orang
(6) Eevee doe desis
(9) sar nwt ace to he reusing person pining elon dei
(G Soren te Sloe desl put net ween toc he auning prio tong Se
sion den cpa
“Under uous cumstances once extending fot mare thn 10 sass dys pod
ihn whic te a fhe ple basil poe he ween spel The Bead oe ue by al
otro: ha aoe eens ars prc wate pet
16) A tart or omen ta te bad a & Puc body mt conse to have reeves wer
spel tle svbeseton@) lh replay had sorg of tat bor coms ew
‘Eisen of te wn appeal der ebesen ()) Ie best of he ube body false Ysood
‘Wro sel puro ostecton (2) if te brat he poe boy spol la prin of e