{ "schema_version": 1, "name": "WickmanWatch Transparency Index (WWTI)", "short_name": "WWTI", "version": "1.2.0", "released": "2026-10-25", "independence_statement": "The WWTI is an independent rating produced by WickmanWatch. It is not an official government rating, it is not endorsed by or affiliated with any government body, and it is an opinion based on the documented evidence listed with each assessment.", "purpose": "To turn the public record of FOIA requests, responses, denials, appeals and fees involving the Delta County Prosecutor's Office into a transparent, repeatable, evidence-traceable measure, and to show how much evidence stands behind it.", "categories": [ { "id": "A", "name": "FOIA Responsiveness and Procedural Compliance", "weight": 10, "description": "Whether the office answers requests on time and in the form the Michigan Freedom of Information Act requires.", "indicators": [ { "id": "A1", "name": "Response timing", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "Was each response issued inside the period MCL 15.235(2) allows, measured from the documented date of receipt? Timing is measured in business days and reported as a median and as the share meeting the applicable deadline. Timing is measured in business days and reported as a median and as the share meeting the applicable deadline. Timing is measured in business days and reported as a median and as the share meeting the applicable deadline. Timing is measured in business days and reported as a median and as the share meeting the applicable deadline.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Nearly every request answered inside the statutory period, with receipt and response dates both documented in the packet.", "40-59": "Mixed record: some responses late or dates that cannot be reconciled from the packet.", "0-19": "Most responses late, or no response to a request that was received.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(1)", "MCL 15.235(2)" ], "not_credited": [ "Speed alone. A fast response that omits required content is scored under A3 and Categories B and E; it earns nothing extra here." ] }, { "id": "A2", "name": "Use of the extension", "internal_weight": 12, "question": "When the office took the single extension MCL 15.235(2) permits, was it used once, by written notice, with a stated reason and a response date?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Extension used once, notice issued inside the original period, reason stated and a date given.", "40-59": "Extension used but notice incomplete (reason or date missing or illegible).", "0-19": "Extension used without notice, used more than once, or the stated date was missed.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 2, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(2)" ], "not_credited": [ "Requests answered without an extension are not evidence for this indicator; mark it not_applicable only with a documented rationale." ] }, { "id": "A3", "name": "Required content of the response", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Does each response contain what MCL 15.235(5) requires: the basis for any exemption, a certificate of nonexistence where applicable, a description of separated material, and notice of the right to appeal?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Every element that applies is present and specific.", "40-59": "Some elements present, others generic or blank.", "0-19": "Required elements routinely absent.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(5)(a)", "MCL 15.235(5)(b)", "MCL 15.235(5)(c)", "MCL 15.235(5)(d)" ], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "A4", "name": "Fee itemization and deposits", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Where fees were quoted or a deposit demanded, was the itemization in the form MCL 15.234 requires, and were deposit rules observed? Itemization is also read for stated labor hours and rates, a per-task split, and the deposit percentage. Itemization is also read for stated labor hours and rates, a per-task split, and the deposit percentage. Itemization is also read for stated labor hours and rates, a per-task split, and the deposit percentage. Itemization is also read for stated labor hours and rates, a per-task split, and the deposit percentage.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Itemization states hourly wage and hours, fees and any deposit are consistent with MCL 15.234, and the requester could check the arithmetic.", "40-59": "Itemization present but incomplete, or the basis for part of the fee is unclear.", "0-19": "No usable itemization, or a deposit or fee demanded without the statutory basis.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.234(2)", "MCL 15.234(4)", "MCL 15.234(8)", "MCL 15.234(13)", "MCL 15.234(14)" ], "not_credited": [ "A quoted fee is not itself a transparency failure. A fee is scored on how it was itemized and justified, and a $0 fee is not evidence of good practice if the response is otherwise deficient." ] }, { "id": "A5", "name": "Fee estimate and deposit timeline", "internal_weight": 14, "question": "How quickly after receipt was a fee estimate issued, and how long did the deposit-to-production stage take where it occurred?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Estimates were issued promptly and within the statutory response window, and any deposit-to-production interval is documented and reasonable.", "40-59": "Estimates were issued, but timing is inconsistent or the deposit-to-production stage is undocumented.", "0-19": "No estimate was issued where one was required, or the timeline cannot be reconstructed from the record.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.234(1)", "MCL 15.234(8)", "MCL 15.234(14)" ], "not_credited": [ "A fast estimate is not by itself a transparency success; it is scored together with accuracy and itemization.", "An unknown deposit-to-production date is not scored as a delay." ] }, { "id": "A6", "name": "Disposition, clarification and outstanding actions", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Did the response identify the request's disposition, state any outstanding action, request clarification where needed, and explain any revised estimate?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Every response states the disposition, any outstanding action and the next step, and any clarification or revised estimate is explained.", "40-59": "Dispositions are usually stated, but outstanding actions or revised estimates are sometimes left unexplained.", "0-19": "Responses do not state a disposition or next step, or the requester is left without notice of what remains outstanding.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(1)", "MCL 15.235(2)", "MCL 15.235(5)" ], "not_credited": [ "An unanswered request is not classified as a denial without evidence.", "A request that needed no clarification is not faulted for lacking one." ] } ], "short_description": "Did the office answer on time, in the form the law requires?" }, { "id": "B", "name": "Record Accessibility and Completeness", "weight": 20, "description": "Whether the records released match what was asked for, are usable, and are redacted no more than the law requires.", "indicators": [ { "id": "B1", "name": "Responsive records produced", "internal_weight": 28, "question": "Compared line by line with the request, how much of what was requested was actually produced? Production is classified as full, partial or none, and record types supplied and not supplied are counted. Production is classified as full, partial or none, and record types supplied and not supplied are counted. Production is classified as full, partial or none, and record types supplied and not supplied are counted. Production is classified as full, partial or none, and record types supplied and not supplied are counted.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Everything requested that exists was produced, or each omission is identified and explained.", "40-59": "A substantial part produced; remaining parts neither produced nor explained.", "0-19": "Little or none of what was requested produced, without explanation.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "A denial is not automatically a failure here: where a record is exempt or does not exist, the question is whether the response said so." ] }, { "id": "B2", "name": "Usability of the records produced", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Are the produced records legible, complete pages, and in a form a member of the public can use? Usability includes machine-readable and searchable formats and original electronic files where appropriate. Usability includes machine-readable and searchable formats and original electronic files where appropriate. Usability includes machine-readable and searchable formats and original electronic files where appropriate. Usability includes machine-readable and searchable formats and original electronic files where appropriate.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Legible, complete, and in the format requested or a usable equivalent.", "40-59": "Usable with effort: poor scans, missing pages, or an unrequested format.", "0-19": "Illegible, truncated, or unusable.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "B3", "name": "Segregation and redaction", "internal_weight": 24, "question": "Did the office separate exempt from nonexempt material and release the rest (MCL 15.244), and do the redactions match the exemption cited?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Redactions are limited to material the exemption reaches, and the response says what was removed and why.", "40-59": "Redactions broadly consistent with the exemption but some are unexplained or appear wider than the exemption.", "0-19": "Whole records withheld where only parts were exempt, or redactions with no stated basis.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.243(1)(a)", "MCL 15.244" ], "not_credited": [ "Redaction of private identifiers under MCL 15.243(1)(a) is not penalized: that exemption is discretionary and often properly applied." ] }, { "id": "B4", "name": "Unexplained gaps and internal consistency", "internal_weight": 16, "question": "Does the production hang together? Are there omissions, contradictions or unexplained differences between what was produced and what the office itself has said elsewhere?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "No unexplained gaps; the production is consistent with the response letter and with the office's own statements.", "40-59": "One or more gaps or inconsistencies that the record neither explains nor rules out.", "0-19": "Material omissions or contradictions that the record shows and the office never addressed.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "A gap is scored only where the record documents it. Suspicion that something is missing is an unresolved question, not a finding." ] }, { "id": "B5", "name": "Search scope and withheld-material disclosure", "internal_weight": 14, "question": "Did the office explain the scope of its search and identify what, if anything, was withheld?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "The search scope, systems or categories searched, and any withheld material are identified clearly enough to assess the response.", "40-59": "Some of the search scope or withheld material is identified; parts are asserted without detail.", "0-19": "Neither the search nor the withheld material is described, so the response cannot be assessed.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.233(4)", "MCL 15.235(5)" ], "not_credited": [ "A lawful withholding is not penalized; only the explanation and identification are scored." ] } ], "short_description": "Did the records released match what was asked for, and was anything cut that shouldn't have been?" }, { "id": "C", "name": "Existing Data Availability and Accessibility", "weight": 30, "description": "Whether data the office already holds, or its case-management system can already produce, is available to the public at reasonable cost, and whether the office explains clearly when it says it is not.", "indicators": [ { "id": "C1", "name": "Availability of existing aggregate data", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "When asked for statistics or counts, did the office provide data it already maintains or can already generate?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Existing reports, exports or counts provided, or their absence clearly and specifically explained.", "40-59": "Some existing data provided; the rest unexplained.", "0-19": "Existing data refused or described as nonexistent with no verifiable basis.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.233(4)", "MCL 15.233(5)" ], "not_credited": [ "MCL 15.233(4) and (5) do not require the office to compile a summary or create a new record. A refusal to compile is not scored as a failure; the question is whether existing data was released and whether the office explained the limit it relied on." ] }, { "id": "C2", "name": "Cost of obtaining existing data", "internal_weight": 16, "question": "Where the office quoted a fee for data, was the cost proportionate to the work described and checkable by the requester? Cost is also read as a relative burden against comparable requests and, where counts exist, per record or page. Cost is also read as a relative burden against comparable requests and, where counts exist, per record or page. Cost is also read as a relative burden against comparable requests and, where counts exist, per record or page. Cost is also read as a relative burden against comparable requests and, where counts exist, per record or page.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Existing data supplied at no or nominal cost, or any fee tied to documented work that is itemized.", "40-59": "A fee that is itemized but whose scope is hard to reconcile with the data requested.", "0-19": "A fee that operates as a barrier and is not tied to documented work.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.234(2)" ], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "C3", "name": "Handling of 'record does not exist' certifications", "internal_weight": 16, "question": "When the office certified that a record does not exist, was the basis explained, the search described, and the position consistent across similar requests?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Certificate states what was searched and why nothing responsive exists; consistent with other responses.", "40-59": "Certificate given with no description of the search.", "0-19": "Certificate contradicted by records the office itself later produced, with no explanation.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(5)(b)" ], "not_credited": [ "A certificate of nonexistence is lawful where true. This indicator scores how it was supported and whether it held up, not the fact of the certificate." ] }, { "id": "C4", "name": "Historical records and system migration transparency", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "How clearly does the record explain what exists from before, during and after the June 2024 move to ProsecutorByKarpel, and how to find it?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "The office documents what historical records exist and where, whether and how records were migrated, what reports or exports can be run, and the search it performed, and it applies one consistent explanation across requests.", "40-59": "Some of these are documented; others are asserted without support or explained inconsistently across requests.", "0-19": "Records are described as unavailable or nonexistent with no explanation of the transition, the search or any alternative source.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "The exact implementation date is not established in the record and is never assumed.", "Requests whose subject period is before the June 2024 go-live are not faulted for lacking system-generated reports; they are split at that date.", "Records are not assumed destroyed, migrated or accessible, and software capabilities are not assumed. Each is credited only on verified evidence." ], "subfactors": [ "Historical records from before implementation", "Records created during the transition", "Records created after implementation", "Whether historical records were migrated", "Existing reports, exports, archives or other sources of historical information", "Explanations given when records are described as nonexistent or unavailable", "Documented search methods and their limitations" ] }, { "id": "C5", "name": "Documentation of system capability", "internal_weight": 8, "question": "Is verifiable documentation (contracts, manuals, vendor material) available showing what the case-management system can report?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Capability documented in records the office released or in vendor documentation that was verified.", "40-59": "Partial documentation; capability claimed on one side but not verified.", "0-19": "No documentation; capability asserted by either side without support.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 1, "min_reviewed_records": 1, "note": "Only one system contract has been obtained, so this indicator is scored on that single reviewed document; the limit is recorded in the assessment note." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "Software capability is never assumed. Only documented or verified capability counts." ] }, { "id": "C6", "name": "Structured data and export capability", "internal_weight": 10, "question": "Does the record show that existing reports, exports or structured data can be produced from the office's systems?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "The record documents existing reports or exports, structured data, and the search and retrieval capability to produce them.", "40-59": "Capability is documented in a contract or system description, but not shown in a produced report or export.", "0-19": "No documentation of reporting, export or structured-data capability exists in the record.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 1, "min_reviewed_records": 1, "note": "A contract proves capability was purchased, not that it was used. The distinction is recorded in the evidence note." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "A purchased capability is not treated as proof that a report was actually produced.", "Capability is never assumed from the vendor's marketing." ] }, { "id": "C7", "name": "Retrieval limitations and alternative sources", "internal_weight": 10, "question": "Where records were unavailable, did the office explain whether they were not retained, not retrievable, or available elsewhere?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "The office distinguishes unavailable from not-retained records, explains technical limits, and identifies alternative sources.", "40-59": "Some limitations or alternatives are explained; others are asserted without support.", "0-19": "Records are described as unavailable with no explanation and no alternative source.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.233(4)", "MCL 15.233(5)" ], "not_credited": [ "A nonexistence certification is not itself a failure; the explanation and alternatives are what is scored." ] } ], "short_description": "Was data the office already holds, or its system can already produce, made available at a reasonable cost?" }, { "id": "D", "name": "Proactive Disclosure", "weight": 10, "description": "What the office publishes without being asked.", "indicators": [ { "id": "D1", "name": "Published statistics and reports", "internal_weight": 22, "question": "Does the office publish case statistics or annual reports where the public can find them?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Regular, dated, findable statistics or reports.", "40-59": "Occasional or hard-to-find publications.", "0-19": "No published statistics located after a documented search.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "public", "min_distinct_foias": 0, "min_reviewed_records": 1, "note": "Based on a dated review of the prosecutor's public page, which is the office's own publication channel." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "Absence is scored only after a dated, documented search of the office's and the county's public sites. An unsearched site is unassessed, not zero." ] }, { "id": "D2", "name": "Published FOIA procedures, forms and fee policy", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "Are the FOIA procedures, request form and fee policy posted and current? Published procedures are also read for fee-waiver and indigency instructions. Published procedures are also read for fee-waiver and indigency instructions. Published procedures are also read for fee-waiver and indigency instructions. Published procedures are also read for fee-waiver and indigency instructions.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Procedures, forms and fee policy posted, current and easy to find.", "40-59": "Posted but incomplete or out of date.", "0-19": "Not posted after a documented search.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "public_sources", "min_distinct_foias": 0, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "D3", "name": "Proactive release of frequently requested records", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Are categories of records that are requested repeatedly released without a request?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Frequently requested categories are published.", "40-59": "Some are published.", "0-19": "None are published although the same records are repeatedly requested and released.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "mixed", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "D4", "name": "Disclosure about data systems", "internal_weight": 14, "question": "Does the office publish what systems it uses, how long records are kept, and what data fields exist?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "System, retention schedule and data fields are publicly described.", "40-59": "Partial description.", "0-19": "Nothing published.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "public_sources", "min_distinct_foias": 0, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "D5", "name": "Machine-readable datasets and downloadable archive", "internal_weight": 14, "question": "Does the office publish machine-readable datasets, historical reports or an organized, dated public document archive?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Machine-readable datasets, historical reports and a dated, described, downloadable archive are published and reachable.", "40-59": "Some reports or documents are published, but they are not machine-readable or not organized as an archive.", "0-19": "No machine-readable dataset, historical report or organized archive is published.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "public", "min_distinct_foias": 0, "min_reviewed_records": 1, "note": "Based on a dated review of the public site." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.234(5)" ], "not_credited": [ "A document is not counted as published merely because it exists; it must be reachable and described." ] }, { "id": "D6", "name": "Requests for already-published information", "internal_weight": 12, "question": "Where a request sought information already public, did the published material actually answer it?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Requests for already-public information were answered by pointing to published material that fully answered them.", "40-59": "Some requests overlapped published material, but the published material only partly answered them.", "0-19": "Requests for already-public information were treated as new work without checking the published material.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "Requires verifying that the published material answered the request, not merely that it existed." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "A request is not assumed unnecessary because related information appeared on a website." ] } ], "short_description": "What does the office publish without anyone having to ask?" }, { "id": "E", "name": "Denial Justification and Appeals Accountability", "weight": 20, "description": "Whether denials are justified, documented consistently, and open to meaningful appeal. A denial is assessed for how well it is justified, never for the fact that it was a denial.", "indicators": [ { "id": "E1", "name": "Statutory basis cited", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "Does each denial or partial denial name the specific statutory exemption relied on?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Each denial cites a specific provision.", "40-59": "Some cite a provision; others give a general reason only.", "0-19": "Denials give no statutory basis.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(5)(a)", "MCL 15.243(1)(a)" ], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "E2", "name": "Explanation of how the exemption applies", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "Does the office explain why the exemption fits the record withheld, and does the explanation fit what was released?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Explanation is specific to the material and consistent with the release.", "40-59": "Explanation is generic or fits only part of what was withheld.", "0-19": "No explanation, or an explanation contradicted by the office's own release.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "Whether the withholding was lawful is a legal question the index does not decide. The score reflects whether the justification is stated and coherent." ] }, { "id": "E3", "name": "Completeness of the Notice of Denial", "internal_weight": 12, "question": "Is the Notice of Denial complete: reason box, statutory subsection, description of separated material, and boxes that agree with the letter?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Every field that applies is completed and agrees with the letter.", "40-59": "Some fields blank or inconsistent with the letter.", "0-19": "Form blank, contradictory, or absent where a denial was issued.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.235(5)" ], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "E4", "name": "Appeal notice, handling and timeliness", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Was the right of appeal explained, and when an appeal was decided, was it handled as MCL 15.240 contemplates?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Appeal rights explained accurately; any appeal decided with reasons and within the periods MCL 15.240 sets, allowing for the rule that a board is not deemed to receive an appeal until its next regular meeting.", "40-59": "Appeal rights explained but an appeal decision gave limited reasons or its timing is unclear.", "0-19": "Appeal rights omitted, or an appeal decided without reasons or outside the statutory periods.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 1, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.240(1)(a)", "MCL 15.240(2)", "MCL 15.240(3)", "MCL 15.240a" ], "not_credited": [ "Where an appeal was filed but its record has not been located, the status is N/A. Absence of an appeal record is not evidence that no appeal exists and is not scored as a failure." ] }, { "id": "E5", "name": "Consistency across similar requests", "internal_weight": 12, "question": "Are similar requests treated alike, or is the same kind of record certified nonexistent in one response and produced in another? Consistency includes whether nonexistence claims agree with other evidence in the record. Consistency includes whether nonexistence claims agree with other evidence in the record. Consistency includes whether nonexistence claims agree with other evidence in the record. Consistency includes whether nonexistence claims agree with other evidence in the record.", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Similar requests receive consistent answers, or differences are explained.", "40-59": "Occasional unexplained differences.", "0-19": "Repeated unexplained reversals on the same kind of record.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "Different outcomes can be lawful where facts differ. The score reflects whether the difference is explained." ] }, { "id": "E6", "name": "Denial rates and nonexempt-portion consideration", "internal_weight": 8, "question": "What share of requests were denied or partly denied, and did the office show that nonexempt portions were considered for release?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Denial rates are documented and each denial shows that nonexempt portions were considered and released where possible.", "40-59": "Denial rates can be computed, but nonexempt-portion consideration is not documented.", "0-19": "Denials are recorded without any indication that nonexempt portions were considered.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.244", "MCL 15.243(1)" ], "not_credited": [ "A high denial rate is not itself misconduct; it is a descriptive measure." ] }, { "id": "E7", "name": "Fee challenges and appeal outcomes", "internal_weight": 10, "question": "Were fee challenges documented separately from access appeals, and did any appeal change the fee or the disclosure outcome?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Fee challenges and access appeals are documented separately, with outcomes and any resulting change explained.", "40-59": "Appeals are documented, but fee challenges are not separated from access appeals or outcomes are incomplete.", "0-19": "No appeal or fee-challenge outcome is documented where one was filed.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 1, "min_reviewed_records": 1, "note": "An upheld denial is not proof of misconduct and a reversal is not proof of wrongdoing." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.240", "MCL 15.240a" ], "not_credited": [ "The absence of a fee challenge is not scored as a failure; only documented outcomes are scored." ] } ], "short_description": "Are denials justified, documented and appealable? A denial is judged on its reasoning, never on the fact of refusal." }, { "id": "F", "name": "Public Communication", "weight": 10, "description": "How clearly and accurately the office communicates with requesters and the public about records.", "indicators": [ { "id": "F1", "name": "Clarity and accuracy of written communications", "internal_weight": 24, "question": "Are response letters clear, internally consistent and accurate about what they enclose?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Letters are clear and accurate; enclosures match what the letter says.", "40-59": "Occasional errors or ambiguities.", "0-19": "Letters are contradictory or misdescribe what was enclosed.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "Typographical errors alone are not scored." ] }, { "id": "F2", "name": "Identified contacts and clarification", "internal_weight": 18, "question": "Is a named contact given and does the office engage when a request needs clarification?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Named contact, working channel, and documented clarification where needed.", "40-59": "Contact given but no documented engagement.", "0-19": "No contact and no engagement.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 2, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [] }, { "id": "F3", "name": "Consistency between public statements and records", "internal_weight": 20, "question": "Do the office's statements to the press and public square with what its own records and responses show?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Public statements are consistent with the records.", "40-59": "Some statements cannot be reconciled with the records.", "0-19": "Public statements are contradicted by the office's own records.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "mixed", "min_distinct_foias": 2, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "A press statement is an official statement, not a documented fact. It is weighed against the record, not assumed true or false." ] }, { "id": "F4", "name": "Correction and explanation of errors", "internal_weight": 14, "question": "When an error or inconsistency is identified, does the office correct or explain it?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Errors are corrected or explained in writing.", "40-59": "Errors acknowledged informally or partially.", "0-19": "Documented errors are neither corrected nor explained.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 1, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement; analysis, inference and unresolved questions cannot establish sufficiency alone." }, "authority": [], "not_credited": [ "Unassessed unless an identified error and the office's response to it are both documented." ] }, { "id": "F5", "name": "Cost and options communication", "internal_weight": 14, "question": "Did the office explain its costs, waiver and appeal options, less-costly alternatives, and ways to narrow the request?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Costs are explained clearly, waiver and appeal options are stated, and less-costly alternatives or narrowing options are offered.", "40-59": "Some cost explanation is given, but waiver, appeal, alternatives or narrowing options are missing.", "0-19": "Costs are stated without explanation and no waiver, appeal, alternative or narrowing option is communicated.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "foia", "min_distinct_foias": 3, "min_reviewed_records": 3, "note": "At least one cited record must be a documented fact or an official statement." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.234(2)", "MCL 15.234(4)", "MCL 15.240" ], "not_credited": [ "A waiver that was not requested is not scored as a failure to offer one." ] }, { "id": "F6", "name": "Public FOIA instructions and accessibility", "internal_weight": 10, "question": "Are clear public FOIA instructions, contacts and fee procedures published and easy to find?", "scoring_criteria": { "80-100": "Clear instructions, contacts, forms and fee procedures are published together and are easy to find.", "40-59": "Instructions and contacts exist, but fee procedures or forms are hard to find or incomplete.", "0-19": "No usable public FOIA instructions are published.", "other_bands": "Scores between the anchors (20-39 and 60-79) are interpolated by the reviewer and the reasoning is written into the evidence record." }, "evidence_requirements": { "scope": "public", "min_distinct_foias": 0, "min_reviewed_records": 2, "note": "Based on a dated review of the public site." }, "authority": [ "MCL 15.234(4)", "MCL 15.234(5)" ], "not_credited": [ "A published procedure is credited only if it is reachable and current enough to use." ] } ], "short_description": "How clearly and accurately does the office explain itself to requesters and the public?" } ], "rating_bands": [ { "min": 0, "max": 19, "label": "Critically Opaque" }, { "min": 20, "max": 39, "label": "Low Transparency" }, { "min": 40, "max": 59, "label": "Limited Transparency" }, { "min": 60, "max": 79, "label": "Generally Transparent" }, { "min": 80, "max": 100, "label": "Highly Transparent" } ], "indicator_statuses": { "sufficient": "Adequate, reviewed, traceable evidence supports a score. The only status that counts toward evidence coverage and the only status that carries a score.", "partial": "Some evidence exists but not enough to score. No score is recorded.", "insufficient": "Evidence was reviewed and found inadequate to score. No score is recorded.", "unassessed": "Not yet reviewed. No score is recorded.", "not_applicable": "Does not apply to the period or the facts. Excluded from the coverage denominator only when a written rationale is recorded." }, "evidence_kinds": { "documented_fact": "Taken directly from a released record, dated and traceable to a document.", "official_statement": "What the public body asserted, in a letter, form or statement to the press. Recorded as an assertion, not as a verified fact.", "analysis": "WickmanWatch's reasoned reading of the record, including arithmetic and comparison across requests.", "inference": "A conclusion drawn from the record that the record does not itself state. Never sufficient on its own.", "unresolved_question": "A question the record raises and does not answer. Never sufficient on its own and never scored as a failure." }, "rules": { "category_assessed_min_coverage": 70, "category_assessed_note": "A category counts as sufficiently assessed, and receives a score, only when at least 70% of its applicable internal indicator weight is sufficient.", "definitive": { "min_overall_coverage": 80, "min_categories_assessed": 4, "min_coverage_by_category": { "C": 70, "E": 70 }, "relevant_requests_threshold": 20, "min_distinct_foias_when_threshold_met": 20 }, "provisional": { "min_overall_coverage": 50, "min_categories_assessed": 3 }, "insufficient_label": "Insufficient Evidence to Score", "rounding": "Scores are held to full precision and displayed to the nearest whole number (half rounds up). The rating band is read from the displayed whole number.", "case_watch_evidence": { "admitted": true, "statement": "A published case watch is an evidence source of type `case_watch`. It is admitted only where the page reproduces primary records verbatim and cites each one by date and document number; a case watch that argues from inference is recorded as `analysis` and can never establish sufficiency on its own.", "counting": "A case watch carrying a FOIA number counts as one distinct FOIA request for the distinct-request check. A case watch without a FOIA number supplies evidence but does not count toward that check and is not counted as a FOIA request.", "no_substitution": "A case watch never substitutes for the underlying document where the document is published. It is a second, citable route to the same record.", "effect": "Admitting case-watch evidence flags the indicators it touches for review. It does not by itself raise a score or mark an indicator sufficient; that requires the written re-review recorded on the indicator." } }, "guardrails": [ "A FOIA denial is not treated as unlawful and is not treated as a failure. Categories B, C and E score how a denial or limit was explained and supported.", "A fast response does not earn a high score. Timing is one indicator among twenty-six.", "Missing evidence is never converted to zero. An indicator without sufficient evidence carries no score, and a category without enough sufficient indicators carries no score.", "A score of 0 is a real score and requires sufficient, traceable evidence like any other.", "Adding a document flags indicators for review. It never raises a score or marks an indicator sufficient.", "A large fee is a measure of financial burden, not by itself proof of a legal violation.", "Every percentage is shown with its denominator, and samples smaller than five are flagged limited.", "An undocumented payment, fee or outcome is null, never zero." ], "karpel": { "system": "ProsecutorByKarpel", "reported_go_live": "June 2024", "exact_implementation_date_established": false, "statement": "The office is reported to have begun using ProsecutorByKarpel in June 2024. No exact day is established in the record, and none is assumed. Requests are split at June 2024 rather than faulted for system-generated reports that could not exist earlier." }, "changelog": [ { "version": "1.0.0", "date": "2026-10-25", "breaking": false, "comparable_with_previous": null, "summary": "Initial release: six categories with fixed weights, twenty-six indicators, evidence-coverage rules and rating bands." }, { "version": "1.1.0", "date": "2026-10-25", "breaking": true, "comparable_with_previous": false, "summary": "Expanded from 26 to 37 indicators inside the same six categories and fixed category weights. Adds cost, complexity, timeline, production, migration, proactive-disclosure, denial and communication measures, and rebalances each category's internal weights to 100. Because the scoring structure changed, scores are not comparable with v1.0.0. No v1.0.0 snapshot had been published; the baseline was 'Insufficient Evidence to Score'." }, { "version": "1.2.0", "date": "2026-10-25", "breaking": false, "comparable_with_previous": true, "summary": "Admits the five published case watches into the evidence base as `case_watch` sources and adds the rule governing when a case watch may be cited. No indicator, weight, band or threshold changes, so scores remain comparable with v1.1.0. Eight indicators were re-reviewed against the new evidence: six moved, two held." } ], "cost_framework": { "note": "Cost is measured as burden, proportionality, itemization, alternatives and outcome, never as a finding of illegality.", "metrics": [ "absolute fee burden", "deposit barrier", "relative fee", "implied hourly cost", "cost per record or page", "estimate-to-final variance", "fee-waiver accessibility", "cost-related abandonment", "partial fulfillment and affordability", "electronic delivery and avoidable costs" ] }, "complexity_framework": { "note": "Complexity is classified only when the evidence permits. Unknown complexity stays unknown.", "fields": [ "record types", "date ranges", "custodians", "systems searched", "search hours", "review hours", "records expected", "records produced", "already public", "existing data vs new compilation", "clarification", "scope narrowed", "scope-to-cost explanation" ] }, "analytics_rules": { "min_sample": 5, "denominator_required": true, "limited_sample_flag": "Samples smaller than five are flagged limited. This is a WickmanWatch reporting rule, not a statistical guarantee.", "no_dollar_ranking": "Requests are never ranked solely by dollar amount." } }