Colorado Oil/Gas -- Holbert lobbying

Mr. Sirota & MuckRock,

I'm contacting you today regarding the multiple versions of open
records requests you sent to several Colorado legislators in May. You
subsequently indicated you wanted to proceed only with your revised
request #2. With the exception of Senator Ray Scott and Senator Jerry
Sonneberg, for whom you indicated on May 12 that you were withdrawing the
requests, all of the legislators have responded to your revised request
#2. Here is an overview:
Senator Randy Baumgardner notified you on May 12 that he had no records
responsive to your request.
Senator Chris Holbert provided his responsive records on June 5.
Senator Vicki Marble provide her responsive records on June 16.
Senator Kevin Grantham finished providing his responsive records on June
23.
Senator John Cooke provided his responsive records on July 14.

It's my understanding all of the legislators are still receiving
what appear to be automatically-generated follow-up emails from MuckRock
regarding the status of the requests. A sample of the follow up emails
is included below. If there is any aspect of these requests that feel is
not complete, please notify me. Otherwise, stop sending the messages.

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,

Matt Dawkins
Office Manager
Office of Legislative Legal Services
Colorado General Assembly
(303) 866-4351
----- Forwarded by Matthew Dawkins/CLICS on 07/31/2017 07:51 AM -----

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <requests@muckrock.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 3:00 AM
Subject: RE: Colorado Open Records Act Request: Colorado oil/gas - Marble
lobbyist
To: vicki.marble.senate@state.co.us

July 27, 2017
Office of Sen. Vicki Marble
This is a follow up to a previous request:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 24, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 21, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 17, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 13, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 10, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 6, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On July 3, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 29, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 26, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 22, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 19, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 15, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 12, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 8, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 5, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On June 1, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 29, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 25, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 22, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 18, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 15, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 11, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 8, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 5, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request,
copied below, and originally submitted on May 2, 2017. Please let me know
when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is
needed.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
---
On May 2, 2017:
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, I hereby request the following
records:
- Specific emails to or from specific legislators to or from email
addresses at the following domain names: "@bmmk.com," "@politicalworks.net
," "@coloradopetroleumassociation.org," "@lobby4co.com," "
capstonegroupllc.com" or "@blackhillscorp.com." The specific emails being
requested are those from the dates 12/1/16 to the present.
The specific legislator that this request covers is: Vicki Marble.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and
this request is not being made for commercial purposes. I am requesting a
waiver of all fees under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The
information I seek is in the public interest because it will contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of
the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. This
request is not a commercial request -- it is being made by an
award-winning media organization and is seeking documents of clear public
interest and concern.
I believe I meet the criteria for a fee waiver recognized by the U.S.
Justice Department - and by the federal courts, See Project on Military
Procurement v. Department of the Navy, 710 F. Supp. 362 363, 365 (D.C.D.
1989).
My request concerns the operations or activities of government because the
records relate to the enforcement of antitrust law at a time when there is
significant public debate about consolidation, market power, and
regulations. The records that are responsive to this request will
spotlight the way the government shapes policy and will also show the ways
that policy is shaped by corporate representatives seeking to influence
public policy.
Also, the information sought has informative value, or potential for
contribution to public understanding. Please note the decision in
Elizabeth Eudey v. Central Intelligence Agency, 478 F. Supp. 1175 1176
(D.C.D. 1979) (even a single document has the potential for contributing
to public understanding). As the senior editor for investigations at
Newsweek/IBT, I plan to disseminate this information to the public at
large through publication in Newsweek and at International Business Times.
Those award-winning publications get millions of visitors per month.
In addition, the release of this information will have a significant
impact on public understanding because it will illustrate how antitrust
enforcement decisions are influenced and made by public officials. The
policy matters this request covers millions of people in their daily
lives, and these documents will show how those matters are perceived by
public officials and influenced by outside interests.
In your deliberations, please take note of the following cases: Campbell
v. U.S. Department of Justice, 334 U.S. App. D.C. (1998)(administrative
and seemingly repetitious information is not exempt from fee-waiver
consideration); Project on Military Procurement (agencies cannot reject a
fee waiver based on the assumption that the information sought is covered
by a FOIA exemption; and Landmark Legal Foundation v. Internal Revenue
Service, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21722 (D.C.D. 1998)(the fact that the
information will soon be turned over to a public body does not exempt the
material from fee-waiver consideration).
I am requesting a waiver of all fees under 5 U.S.C. Section
552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The information I seek is in the public interest
because it will contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my
commercial interest. This request is not a commercial request -- it is
being made by an award-winning media organization.
I believe I meet the criteria for a fee waiver recognized by the U.S.
Justice Department - and by the federal courts, See Project on Military
Procurement v. Department of the Navy, 710 F. Supp. 362 363, 365 (D.C.D.
1989).
My request concerns the operations or activities of government because the
records relate to the enforcement of antitrust law at a time when there is
significant public debate about consolidation, market power, and
regulations. The records that are responsive to this request will
spotlight the way the government shapes policy and will also show the ways
that policy is shaped by corporate representatives seeking to influence
public policy.
Also, the information sought has informative value, or potential for
contribution to public understanding. Please note the decision in
Elizabeth Eudey v. Central Intelligence Agency, 478 F. Supp. 1175 1176
(D.C.D. 1979) (even a single document has the potential for contributing
to public understanding). As the senior editor for investigations at
Newsweek/IBT, I plan to disseminate this information to the public at
large through publication in Newsweek and at International Business Times.
Those award-winning publications get millions of visitors per month.
In addition, the release of this information will have a significant
impact on public understanding because it will illustrate how antitrust
enforcement decisions are influenced and made by public officials. The
policy matters this request covers millions of people in their daily
lives, and these documents will show how those matters are perceived by
public officials and influenced by outside interests.
In your deliberations, please take note of the following cases: Campbell
v. U.S. Department of Justice, 334 U.S. App. D.C. (1998)(administrative
and seemingly repetitious information is not exempt from fee-waiver
consideration); Project on Military Procurement (agencies cannot reject a
fee waiver based on the assumption that the information sought is covered
by a FOIA exemption; and Landmark Legal Foundation v. Internal Revenue
Service, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21722 (D.C.D. 1998)(the fact that the
information will soon be turned over to a public body does not exempt the
material from fee-waiver consideration).
If it is your position that some records are exempt from disclosure but
others are not, I request that you provide the documents that are not
exempt. For the exempted documents, I request that you provide an index of
those exempted documents as required under Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820
(D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1972). As you are aware, a
Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient
specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is
actually exempt under FOIA.” Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603
F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Moreover, the Vaughn index must “describe
each document or portion thereof withheld, and for each withholding it
must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information.”
King v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
(emphasis added). Further, “the withholding agency must supply ‘a
relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons
why a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with
the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.’” Id.at
224 (citing Mead Data Central v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d
242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I
look forward to receiving your response to this request within 3 business
days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
David Sirota
IBT/Newsweek
(646) 867-7100
------
Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com
Upload documents directly:
https://www.muckrock.com/accounts/agency_login/office-of-sen-vicki-marble-8589/colorado-oilgas-marble-lobbyist-37164/?email=vicki.marble.senate%40state.co.us&uuid-login=fd444383-0239-4a21-b78b-cea84bd587a5#agency-reply

Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the
above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock
DEPT MR 37164
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is
being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share,
and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed
(i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the
department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
------

--
Sheryl Fernandez
Legislative Aide to Senator Vicki Marble
(303) 866-4876
200 E. Colfax Ave.
Denver, CO 80203
Room 266

That's odd -- I'll double check on my end to see if I didn't toggle something to turn them off.
Sent from my iPhone