SLED to charge for checksBy Ron Menchaca (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, October 13, 2008
In their role as the public's watchdog, reporters often request criminal background histories on suspects, people in the spotlight or candidates running for public office. Such checks can flag shady pasts or lengthy criminal records and add important context to news stories that educate and inform the public. But apparently, this service also is costly. At least, that's what the State Law Enforcement Division implied this week when it announced that it will stop providing courtesy copies to media outlets and will now charge $25 for each criminal background check. The agency says the move is a cost-saving measure in response to statewide budget cuts. Watchdog
Are you ticked off by people who illegally use handicap placards? Want to know which restaurants are making you sick or which gas stations have bad pumps? SLED previously provided reporters writing stories about criminal suspects two complimentary copies per day. Beyond that, newspapers and other news organizations were required to pay the same $25 fee that is charged to all members of the public. Charitable groups, mentors and recreation commissions will continue to pay a reduced fee of $8. William Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association, said the change won't affect only the media. Fees can become hurdles to public information that ultimately harm citizens by hindering access to public information, he said. "I think it's going to make it tougher for the public to find out what the records are of some of these suspects. The public is going to be the loser." The press association, which represents more than 100 daily and weekly newspapers in South Carolina, already has heard concerns from several of its members and is considering legal options for challenging SLED's decision, Rogers said. SLED says it's under no obligation to provide free reports to the media. Though it will continue to provide courtesy copies of criminal records to reporters covering news releases and news conferences. "We don't have any say as to how much the fee is going to cost. That's in the state law," said SLED communications director Jennifer Timmons. "It's not a fee increase. In the past it was a courtesy." She estimated that her office processes from five to eight complimentary records on an average day. The requests often are handled electronically via e-mail, she said. The state Freedom of Information Act allows, but does not require, public bodies to charge "reasonable" fees that reflect the actual cost of researching or copying records. Agencies are encouraged to charge the lowest possible cost and can reduce or waive such fees when the requested information is in the public interest. Charles N. Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri, said pulling the plug on complimentary background checks reeks of an attempt to fill state coffers. "As taxpayers, you've already paid for that data," Davis said. "Those are our records, and they want to make a buck off of them. They can't argue that it costs them $25 and keep a straight face." Timmons said the agency could not provide any figures on how much such requests cost SLED or how much the agency expects to save by charging for all criminal background checks. Answering those questions would require research, and The Post and Courier would need to request that information through the state Freedom of Information Act, she said. With state government facing budget shortfalls, more agencies are likely to look for savings or generate revenue in ways that may further limit access to public information, Rogers said. "Unfortunately, it's a harbinger of a lot of things to come with a lot of public agencies." Jay Bender, an attorney for the press association and an expert on the state's open records law, said he still is researching the issue but suspects SLED may be well within its rights to charge a fee that already is established in state law. Given the severity of the state's budget crisis, it could be tough to mount an argument against an agency looking for ways to trim its spending, Bender said. "I don't think it violates the spirit of the (open records) law," he said. "I just hope SLED is not making an effort to become a profit center." Reach Ron Menchaca at rmenchaca@postandcourier.com or 937-5724. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 17 comment(s)
Posted by lillycollette on October 13, 2008 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here’s some neat FOI that may brighten someone's morning coffee:
http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/213034...
Plea agreement in Lakin case stalls
6/2/2008 4:00 AM
By Steve Gonzalez
U.S. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert forewarned federal prosecutors and Tom Lakin's lawyer to iron out a plea agreement because "this case isn't like wine, it's not going to get better with age." … Gilbert made the comment March 3 at a hearing in Benton that was set for him to decide if he would accept the once powerful Madison County lawyer's change of plea in a sex and drug criminal case.
===============================================================
http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/215211...
Lakin sentenced to six years in federal prison
10/8/2008 11:17 AM
By Steve Gonzalez
U.S. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert sentenced Tom Lakin to six years in prison this morning after Lakin plead guilty to drug charges. … Gilbert told Lakin his actions destroyed not only his life, but the lives of children he supplied cocaine. Gilbert also told Lakin that his legal career will be forgotten by his peers and that he will be remembered for the crimes he committed. … Lakin was also ordered to pay the cost of his incarceration and supervised release which Gilbert estimated to be approximately $128,800. "I'll be damned if I am going to saddle taxpayers of this country" with the costs of incarceration "given the funds you have for your health and welfare," Gilbert said last month during Lakin's change of plea hearing. In addition, Lakin will pay $180,000 in restitution and forfeit $325,000.
Posted by blackberry_fan on October 13, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think its reasonable to charge the press a fee. Its not like they are giving their newspapers away. They are selling them and making a profit.
Posted by commonsence on October 13, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Timmons said the agency could not provide any figures on how much such requests cost SLED or how much the agency expects to save by charging for all criminal background checks. Answering those questions would require research, and The Post and Courier would need to request that information through the state Freedom of Information Act, she said."
...So they could also charge a reasonable rate for this research as well.
No reason the media should get this for free when we all have to pay.
Posted by nurse7798 on October 13, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have had to pay the fee for one for a job in the past. It came out of my first paycheck. If I have to pay for the thing so I can work why shouldn't the press have to pay too ? I pay dearly for a newspaper every month. they don't come free. They need to get over it.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 13, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Agreed. I have had to pay for one before too. Why should newspapers get free background checks? So they can turn around and make a profit off of the info?
Posted by ITHAPPENS on October 13, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lloyd has to pay for those new Tahoes, badges and uniforms. One would think that during a budget crisis only necessities would be purchased.
Posted by carolinadude on October 13, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NO FREE BACKGROUND CHECKS PERIOD!!!
Posted by USMCMWS on October 13, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SLED and everyone else in the state government is claiming that they need to raise revenue and that slashing budgets is the answer. I have a simple solution why not enforce the laws we have already got on the books. For example, if Department of Revenue (DOR) through its enforcement arm (SLED) would cite business that sell alcohol to minors in accordance with the law the state could raise at least 12 million dollars a year, assuming that these were all first time violators, multiple violators could increase that number exponentially.
Another simple yet effective way to raise large sums of money might be to bring back the video poker machines. While some would argue that they cause more problems than they solve a look back at history would show that we stayed in the black or close to it while these were legal. Hmmm... Maybe the tax revenues helped.
While charging reporters to access public information is seen as an affront to the “free expression of news” it seems that if it is good enough for the general public then it should be good enough for the reporters. If the story is that important then a little fee like this shouldn’t be that big a deal, especially since they are making money selling the news to us.
State government is always using the Sherman method of budgeting (slash and burn). We have at our disposal the means to fund the government without wholesale cuts. Maybe this token fee will be the beginning of using the resources we already have on the books to fund the programs deemed a necessity.
Semper Fi
Posted by JC on October 13, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe Q. Public has to pay, why not the media - they have the big bucks.
Posted by ysillyme on October 13, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early~
According to some sled's dashcams, that wouldn't be the only thing they are pulling out of their fannies.
Posted by Lovely_One on October 13, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree CFB, I had to pay to get my own background check and the media can get MY info for free. Charge everyone or charge no one!
Posted by ysillyme on October 13, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lovely_one~
If you don't mind me asking, how much did they charge You for that info.?
Posted by Missing_Home on October 13, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say Charge No One!!!!
Our tax dollars have already payed for those records, Open the server up to the internet and let the public do it's own searches. Like so many other counties/States across America.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 13, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that I think of it the last rental home I was in charged an application/background check fee. It was expensive too. It cost me like $65 for both. I also had one when I recertified in my career field.
Posted by hillbilly on October 13, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
News media hounds are Democrats. They are always looking for a handout.
Posted by AndyT on October 13, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ysillyme: I have never seen a dash camera in a sled car. EVER!!! Was there last week.
Missin_Home So you dont care if anyone has access to all of your records? But you hide behind a screen name!
I like the bringing back poker machines. I hate going to a gas station and waiting behind these morons who waste all of their money on the scratch offs. Get your ticket and get out of the way. And back to the topic, yes SLED should charge.
Posted by walleyedwoman1215 on October 14, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear what some of you are saying about charging everyone, media included, for the info. But it's not about gouging everyone equally :-) When you get down to the crunchy parts, what this means (if implemented as written), is that the paper's crime stories will now lack crucial information, such as a suspect's previous criminal record, where a drug bust occurred, scheduled bond hearings, etc. Newspapers are gasping for air right now (the cost of newsprint has gone up 200 percent in the last year), and if this extra expense is tacked on you're going to hear editors crashing to the floor across the state.
In the interests of disclosure (as I've noted before), I was a crime reporter/news editor for 23 years.
Hope everyone's enjoying this lovely weather!