In the September 7, 2013 Lansing State Journal (LSJ) Article: http://on.lsj.com/15T4BKO the lack of transparency on MDOT contracts is discussed.
The article states: “Meanwhile, state transportation officials said in their written response last week that the State Journal’s request to review all of MDOT’s contracts was “exceptionally broad” — so much so that it’s “impossible to accurately estimate the amount of man hours it will take to compile all of the data,” wrote Bill Perod, MDOT’s freedom of information coordinator. “I would easily anticipate your request to eclipse well into tens of thousands of dollars, Perod wrote.””
In the Federal case of BBF Engineering Services, et al. versus MDOT et al., http://bit.ly/19Uxx2i even though the requests for documentation were not vast, MDOT has also been resistant to providing information requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The LSJ article also states: “Under Michigan’s FOIA, government entities must provide a written initial response within five business days of receiving a request. Perod did not provide MDOT’s written response until Sept. 4, 10 business days after the State Journal submitted its request.”
The Lansing State Journal article also states: “MDOT has the third-largest budget of any state agency at $3.4 billion this fiscal year.”
It is as if “the rules do not apply to MDOT management”. Why is MDOT creating a deterrent to taxpayers who desire to obtain contracting information?
The document MDOTLetting_Stats-FY2012 shows construction contracting dollars for 2011 and 2012 (through October, 2012). Page 12 shows contracting dollars for the top 10 Michigan construction firms for MDOT during 2011 and 2012 (2012 statistics are through third quarter). In the years 2011 and 2012, the top ten contractors each had annual revenue from MDOT contracts between $21 million and $200 million dollars. Contracting dollars to construction and professional service companies owned by (African American) persons of color is estimated to be 2.7% annually (in recent years), but MDOT will not openly publish this information. Federal Funds support over one-half of MDOT’s state trunkline road and bridge program. http://1.usa.gov/1aC9giw
The Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By
Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048 http://1.usa.gov/16adeL9
States the following:
(4)(A)(i) In order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, specifying the schedule of fees applicable to the processing of requests under this section and establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced. Such schedule shall conform to the guidelines which shall be promulgated, pursuant to notice and receipt of public comment, by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and which shall provide for a uniform schedule of fees for all agencies.
(ii) Such agency regulations shall provide that–
(I) fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review, when records are requested for commercial use;
(II) fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media; and
(III) for any request not described in (I) or (II), fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search and duplication.
(iii) Documents shall be furnished without any charge or at a charge reduced below the fees established under clause (ii) if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
