STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR PAT ROBERT C. STEPHENS GOVERNOR GENERAL COUNSEL February 7, 2014 Roy Cooper Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Re: Special Service Charges Dear Roy, We have received your letter regarding special service charges in connection with responding to public records requests. First, and to be clear, this administration is committed to transparency, open govemment, and broad access to public records. To suggest otherwise ignores our current practices and is simply wrong. State agencies and this office routinely fill public record requests in a timely marmer at little or no cost. While you question the special service charge, you do acknowledge that such a charge is allowed by law. We agree. Agencies use special service charge policies to handle large requests that require an extensive amount of govemment resources. We do not agree that this charge violates either the spirit or the legislative intent of the Public Records Act. It was neither the legislative intent nor the spirit of the public record laws to expect taxpayers to subsidize large, time consuming, and expensive public record requests that we so frequently receive today. Absent from your letter was any concern for the efficient use of taxpayer dollars or any concern about the countless hours state and local government employees spend on fulfilling large requests. But these are the very reasons why the law allows special service charges--so that state and local govemments don't have to absorb all the costs they incur in responding to extensive requests. Having those who make large requests incur some costs for using an extensive amount of public resources is a simple matter of fairness to the taxpaying public. 20301 MAIL SERVICE CENTER - RALEIGH, NC 27699-0301 - TELEPHONE: 919-733-5811 You question whether a thirty-minute standard constitutes "extensive". There is no North Carolina case law that defines "extensive". However, laws in other states are instructional. For example, Florida's special service charge language is nearly identical to North Carolina's. See Fla. Stat. Their definition of extensive is 15 minutes. See Florida Institutional Legal Services Inc. v. Florida Department of Corrections, 579 So.2d 267 (1991). I'm confused as to why you make it a point in your letter to congratulate your office for not charging the public for the time it takes to make sure that confidential information is not released. No state agency charges for this. North Carolina G.S. does not allow such a charge. Special service charges are only allowed for the extensive use of clerical time, supervisory assistance, and information technology resources. This administration follows the letter of the law when it comes to these charges, despite your implications to the contrary. In your letter, you cite no real legal issues surrounding special service charges, just your general disagreement with them. On this issue, we will respectfully agree to disagree. Moreover, your letter does not dispute the legality of these charges, which other state entities have levied for years. For example, the entire UNC University System has had a long-standing policy in place to levy special charges for extensive requests. Towns, cities, and counties are also grappling with a growing number of extensive requests. In response, cities like Charlotte and Asheville have instituted special service charge policies. You seem particularly unconcemed with the challenges facing local governments in responding to these requests. This is puzzling, considering that the impact felt by small towns, cities, and counties is much greater than the impact felt by the state. Their personnel and financial resources are much more limited. Special service charges help these towns, cities, and counties cope with massive requests. You state that whenever you become aware of a local government entity levying a special service charge you will send them a copy of your letter, ostensibly expressing your disapproval. I do not understand why you believe it to be a proper exercise of your official position as Attorney General to send unsolicited public policy advice on official state letterhead to local govemments who have done nothing contrary to state law. Finally, my office is being pro-active on this issue. We began several months ago to identify issues and work on solutions to the public records request process. We've met with representatives of state and local governments as well as members of the media. We will continue to do so. Yours Very Truly, 73? Robert C. Stephens General Counsel to the Governor