August 13, 2025
0 Comments
By Wickman Watch

FOIA Request #25-195: Prosecutor’s Office Performance Data – $5,960 Fee to Access Statistics

Date: August 13, 2025 (Request) → September 3, 2025 (Response)
Status: Granted in Part, Denied in Part
Fee Estimate: $5,919.60
Timeframe: January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024

The Request

On August 13, 2025, a comprehensive FOIA request was submitted seeking all internal or external reports, evaluations, reviews, assessments, audits, performance appraisals, case statistics, summaries, or compilations of prosecutorial work prepared by, for, or on behalf of the Delta County Prosecutor or Prosecutor’s Office during 2023 and 2024.

The request specifically included:

Performance reviews, employee evaluations, or operational assessments
Annual, mid-year, or year-end reports
Case summaries or statistical breakdowns by type, disposition, or outcome
Reports provided to or prepared for County officials, oversight bodies, or the public
Any compiled data, tables, charts, or narrative summaries reflecting prosecutorial work
Both draft and final versions, regardless of labeling (draft, final, internal, confidential)

This was a legitimate oversight request seeking fundamental performance data about a public prosecutor’s office – exactly the type of information taxpayers and the public should have access to in order to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their elected prosecutor.

What Was Provided

The Prosecutor’s Office GRANTED IN PART the request and provided several budget-related documents:

Budget Documents Provided:

Budget Memo for Fiscal Year 2024-25 with attachments
Draft Memo for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Budget Memo for Fiscal Year 2023-24 with external documents
Draft Memo for Fiscal Year 2023-24
Charges on Authorized Misdemeanor Case Report (01/01/2023 to 11/30/2023)
Charges on Authorized Felony Cases Report (01/01/2023 to 11/30/2023)
Warrants Authorized by Agency Report (01/01/2023 to 11/30/2023)

Analysis: The provided documents are primarily budget memos and basic case tracking reports. While these contain some useful information about case volumes and budget requests, they do not constitute comprehensive performance evaluations, assessments, or detailed statistical breakdowns by disposition or outcome.

What Was Denied

1. Reports to County Officials – DENIED (Attorney-Client Privilege)

“Your request for ‘reports provided to or prepared for county officials,’ outside to those provided above, are DENIED pursuant to Attorney-client privilege, pursuant to MCL 15.243(1)(g) as the Delta County Prosecutor’s office serves Delta County as civil counsel and regularly provides reports or memos to County officials pursuant to the Attorney-client relationship.”

The Claim: Reports provided to County officials are protected by attorney-client privilege because the Prosecutor’s Office serves as civil counsel to the County.

The Problem: This is an overly broad interpretation of attorney-client privilege. While some communications between attorneys and clients are privileged, the privilege:

Does not apply to factual information, statistics, or performance data
Does not apply to reports about prosecutorial activities (as opposed to civil legal advice)
Should be applied narrowly to communications seeking or providing legal advice, not routine performance reports
May not apply to reports prepared for oversight or budgetary purposes rather than legal consultation

The Prosecutor’s Office is using attorney-client privilege as a blanket exemption to hide all reports provided to County officials, even when those reports contain non-privileged factual information about prosecutorial work.

2. Performance Reviews and Employee Evaluations – DENIED (Records Don’t Exist)

“Your request for ‘performance reviews, employee evaluations, or operational assessments’ is DENIED as a review of the records reveal they do not exist.”

The Claim: The Prosecutor’s Office certifies that after a search, no performance reviews, employee evaluations, or operational assessments exist.

The Problem: This claim is highly improbable. Any properly run organization, especially a government office with multiple employees, should have some form of performance evaluation system. The absence of such records suggests:

Inadequate employee management and oversight
Failure to conduct regular performance reviews
Lack of formal evaluation processes
Potential records management failures

A prosecutor’s office with multiple attorneys and support staff operating for two full years (2023-2024) without any performance evaluations or operational assessments is indicative of poor management practices.

3. Statistical Breakdowns by Outcome – CONDITIONAL ON $5,919.60 FEE

The response acknowledges that “statistical breakdowns by type, disposition, or outcome” could be provided, but:

“Given the breadth of your request and the number of records (review of approximately 2,400 case files to locate charging documents and/or sentencing documents) which must be searched for and reviewed to respond to such a request, the public body has determined that failing to charge for the costs of the search, examination, review, and deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information would result in unreasonably high costs to the County beyond those typically incurred in responding to FOIA requests.”

The Fee Estimate:

Total Estimate: $5,919.60
Required Deposit: $2,959.80 (50%)
Estimated Timeframe: 270 days
Labor to Locate: $2,980.80 (480 increments at $6.21 per 15 minutes)
Labor to Redact: $2,980.80 (480 increments at $6.21 per 15 minutes)
Hourly Wage with Benefits: $24.82

The Claims:

Need to review approximately 2,400 case files
Estimated 3 minutes per file to locate documents
Estimated 4 minutes per file to redact personal information

The Problems:

Excessive Time Estimates: The claim that it takes 3 minutes to locate documents in a file and 4 minutes to redact information per file is inefficient at best and unreasonable at worst. A well-organized case management system should allow for much faster document retrieval.
Manual Redaction Instead of Automated Tools: Modern document processing includes automated redaction tools. The fact that the Prosecutor’s Office appears to be doing manual redaction suggests outdated technology and processes.
270-Day Timeline: Nine months to provide statistical breakdowns of case dispositions is excessive and effectively functions as a denial by delay.
Fee as a Deterrent: A $5,919.60 fee for basic statistical data is clearly designed to discourage access to public records, not to recover reasonable costs.
Inflated File Count: The estimate of 2,400 files for just one year’s cases needs verification. Adult criminal cases in a county the size of Delta should be substantially lower, or the Prosecutor’s Office is maintaining excessive documentation.

What the Budget Memos Reveal

Despite the denials and excessive fees, the provided budget memos contain some concerning information about the Prosecutor’s Office:

Staffing Shortages

The July 17, 2024 budget memo reveals:

“In summary, the formula, including information for only Adult criminal cases in Delta County in 2023, would indicate an appropriate staffing of 4.4 attorneys.”

Yet the memo states that currently the office lacks sufficient attorney availability to attend Pretrial Conferences or Arraignments in District Court.

The Prosecutor claims the office needs closer to six attorneys to handle all statutory duties, including:

Personal Protection Proceedings
Mental Health Proceedings
Dangerous Animal Proceedings
Probation Violation Proceedings
Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings
Abuse/Neglect Proceedings
County Civil duties

Increased Caseload

The budget memo notes:

“The plain number of cases coming through the Delta County Prosecutor’s Office has increased by approximately 80 cases five months into the year from 2023.”

This represents a significant increase in workload without corresponding increases in staffing.

Case Management Problems

The memo admits:

“Due to our recent change to a new case tracking system, some information is no longer available to our office, or transferred inaccurately.”

This raises serious questions about:

The reliability of the Prosecutor’s Office’s case data
The competence of the transition to the new system
Whether case information has been lost or corrupted
How long these data problems have existed

Key Issues and Concerns

1. Fee Harassment

The $5,919.60 fee estimate for basic statistical data is a classic example of “fee harassment” – setting fees so high that no reasonable person can afford them, effectively denying access without technically denying the request. Basic case statistics should be readily available or easily compiled without reviewing thousands of individual files.

2. Attorney-Client Privilege Overreach

The blanket claim that all reports to County officials are privileged is an overreach. Attorney-client privilege protects legal advice, not factual information about prosecutorial activities or performance data. The Prosecutor’s Office is using this privilege as a catch-all exemption to hide information from public oversight.

3. Improbable “No Records” Claim

The claim that no performance reviews or employee evaluations exist over a two-year period strains credibility and suggests poor management practices. Every well-run organization conducts some form of performance evaluation.

4. Inefficient Processes

The time estimates for document retrieval and redaction (7 minutes per file on average) suggest inefficient processes and outdated technology. A properly organized office should be able to provide statistical data much more efficiently.

5. Denial by Delay

The 270-day timeline for providing statistical breakdowns is effectively a denial by delay. The public should not have to wait nine months for basic performance data about their prosecutor’s office.

6. Data Reliability Concerns

The budget memo’s admission that the new case tracking system has caused information to become unavailable or transferred inaccurately raises serious concerns about the reliability of any data the Prosecutor’s Office provides.

Conclusion

FOIA Request #25-195 reveals a Prosecutor’s Office that is:

Hiding behind excessive fees: Charging nearly $6,000 for basic statistical data that should be readily available.
Misusing legal privileges: Applying attorney-client privilege to reports that should be public records.
Failing to manage employees: Claiming no performance evaluations exist over two years.
Operating inefficiently: requiring excessive time and expense to retrieve basic information.
Struggling with staffing: Admitting inability to attend important court hearings due to attorney shortages.
Having data problems: Acknowledging that case information has been lost or corrupted due to system changes.

The public deserves transparency about how their prosecutor’s office is performing. The Delta County Prosecutor’s Office’s response to this FOIA request suggests deep-seated problems with management, transparency, and accountability that should concern every resident of Delta County.

When a prosecutor’s office charges nearly $6,000 and requires a nine-month wait to provide basic case statistics, they’re not complying with FOIA – they’re obstructing it.

Request Status: Granted in Part, Denied in Part
Fee Required: $5,919.60 ($2,959.80 deposit)
Timeframe: 270 days

References and Documents Analyzed (Click any of the links below to view the Responsive Documents)

Tags:Accountability Delta County Michigan PublicRecords

Prosecutor’s Office Performance Data – $5,960 Fee to Access Statistics