|Submitted||Dec. 4, 2015|
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
To Whom It May Concern:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:
CIA Inspector General investigation 2011-10078-IG, labelled "Alleged Nepotism"
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
An acknowledgement letter, stating the request is being processed.
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Dec. 4, 2015. 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.
A fix is required to perfect the request.
I previously filed an appeal on this matter but can find no record or acknowledgment of it, so I am filing a new appeal with new information at this time.
Michael Lavergne improperly combined 28 unconnected FOIA requests for 28 unrelated Inspector General reports on 28 events that are, to the best of my knowledge, unrelated.
Point 1.) Michael Lavergne stated that "For ease of processing, we have combined your requests into one and assigned it the reference number above."
Point 2.) To the best of my knowledge, the statutes do not authorize FOIA requests to be combined for "ease of processing." Rather the statute authorizes your agency to " aggregate requests and charge accordingly when it reasonably believes that [an individual] or group of requesters acting in concert, are attempting to avoid fees by dividing a single request into a series of requests on a single subject or related subjects."
Point 3.) The statute specifically states that bureaus and agencies "will not aggregate multiple requests involving unrelated matters."
Point 4.) Michael Lavergne did not assert that the requests were related in any fashion, rather he stated that it was for "ease of processing."
Point 5.) Michael Lavergne now states that the request for 28 unrelated reports is "exceptional" or that there are "unusual circumstances" due to the complexity of my request (though it was actually 28 requests). However his statement that the request is now extremely complex directly contradicts his prior statement that it was for "ease of processing", demonstrating not only a deviation from the legal requirements set out but that it was done so either in bad faith or the result of incompetence.
Point 6.) These delays in processing the request are not authorized by law, and constitute a chilling effect for filing FOIA requests.
I ask that my requests be separated and processed separately as they were filed and as required by law.