FOIA Request #26-57: Full Financial Picture — Systematically Blocked
Filed: February 24, 2026
Response: February 26, 2026
Status: DENIED — Densmore Exception (Improper)
What Was Requested
I requested the complete financial picture of the ProsecutorbyKarpel system, including:
- Invoices, payment records, or vouchers
- Licensing, subscription, or maintenance fees
- Costs associated with data migration, training, or system implementation
- Any documents reflecting total amount paid or obligated to be paid
- Funding source(s) for such payments
This was a comprehensive request designed to answer the most critical question: What is the complete financial commitment to the ProsecutorbyKarpel system, and where is the money coming from?
What Was Provided
NOTHING.
The Prosecutor’s Office refused to provide any documents.
What Was Supposed to Be Provided
The response acknowledged that the following responsive documents exist:
- Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan & Delta County Prosecutor’s Office Contract for ProsecutorbyKarpel
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 10/26/2023
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 06/30/2024
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 06/25/2025
- Karpel Solutions Invoice dated 01/27/2026
- Any documents reflecting funding sources
- Any documents reflecting total amounts paid or obligated
What We Already Know
Before this request, we had obtained the following information through prior FOIA requests:
From FOIA #25-201 (August 2025):
- Three Karpel invoices totaling $98,400
- Partial contract information
- No funding source information
- No total cost summary
- No migration/training costs
From FOIA #26-46 (February 2026):
- New Invoice #76350 dated 01/27/2026 — $11,075
- Reference to “Year 4 Annual Billing: June 2027–May 2028”
- Detailed line-item breakdown of annual costs
- Contract and other invoices refused under Densmore
Confirmed Total:
| Invoice Date | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2023 | $43,662.50 | Year 1 |
| 06/30/2024 | $22,150.00 | Year 2 |
| 06/25/2025 | $32,587.50 | Year 3 |
| 01/27/2026 | $11,075.00 | Year 4 |
| CONFIRMED TOTAL | $109,475.00 |
Critical Gaps Remaining
Despite over $109,000 in confirmed payments, major gaps in our understanding remain:
1. No Funding Source Information
We have no documentation showing:
- Which fund(s) are paying for ProsecutorbyKarpel
- Whether it’s the general fund, grant money, state funds, or other sources
- How the costs are allocated in the budget
- Whether any federal funds are involved
2. No Total Obligated Amount
We have individual invoices, but no document showing:
- The total contractual obligation over the full term
- How much more will be paid through May 2028
- Whether there are renewal options beyond Year 4
- What the lifetime cost of the system will be
3. No Migration/Training Costs
The invoices appear to cover base subscription and maintenance fees only. We have no documentation for:
- Data migration costs
- Staff training expenses
- System implementation costs
- Hardware or infrastructure costs
- Ongoing technical support costs
4. Incomplete Invoice History
We have no way to verify:
- Whether additional invoices exist that haven’t been provided
- Whether the 10/26/2023 invoice is truly the first invoice
- Whether any invoices were paid before the contract date
- Whether there are invoices for related services not included in our requests
5. No Complete Contract
We have partial contract information, but not:
- Full terms and conditions
- Total contract term and renewal provisions
- Termination clauses
- Service level agreements
- All financial commitments and obligations
Reason for Denial
The Prosecutor’s Office denied the request under Densmore v Department of Corrections, claiming these documents were “already provided” in FOIA Requests #25-201 and #26-46.
Their response stated:
“As you have not provided good cause to require the reproduction of these responsive documents, pursuant to Densmore v Department of Corrections… these documents will not be reproduced under this FOIA Request.”
Why This Denial Is Improper
This denial is improper for multiple compelling reasons:
1. New Documents Never Previously Provided
The most obvious reason this denial fails: several requested documents did not exist when the previous requests were processed.
Invoice #76350 (01/27/2026):
- This invoice is dated January 27, 2026
- FOIA #25-201 was processed in September 2025 — more than four months earlier
- It was impossible for #25-201 to provide this document
- It was only obtained through #26-46 — and #26-46 refused to provide other documents
Invoice 10/26/2023 vs. 10/26/2021:
- FOIA #25-201 provided an invoice dated 10/26/2021
- Request #26-57 seeks an invoice dated 10/26/2023
- These are DIFFERENT invoices on different dates
- Even if Densmore applied to the 2021 invoice, it cannot apply to the 2023 invoice
2. Information Categories Never Previously Requested
Request #26-57 seeks information that was NEVER requested in #25-201 or #26-46:
Funding Sources:
- #26-57 specifically asks for “funding source(s) for such payments”
- Neither #25-201 nor #26-46 asked for funding sources
- This is completely new information
Total Amounts Paid or Obligated:
- #26-57 asks for “total amount paid or obligated to be paid”
- Previous requests asked for invoices and contracts, not total amounts
- A total cost summary or calculation is different from individual documents
Migration, Training, and Implementation Costs:
- #26-57 specifically asks for “costs associated with data migration, training, or system implementation”
- Previous requests did not ask for these specific cost categories
- These may involve separate contracts, invoices, or documents not captured by general invoice requests
3. Documents Refused in Previous Request
FOIA #26-46 refused to provide the contract and several invoices under Densmore — a refusal that was itself improper.
The Prosecutor’s Office cannot:
- Improperly deny documents in one request
- Then cite that improper denial as justification for denying documents in another request
Two improper denials do not make a proper one.
4. The Densmore Exception Does Not Apply
Densmore applies only when:
- The SAME records are requested
- There is NO justification for the duplicate request
In this case:
- I am NOT seeking the same records — many are new or different
- I have a clear justification: the previous responses left critical gaps in understanding the full financial picture
- I am seeking new categories of information never provided before
What Should Be Provided
A complete response to this request should provide:
Financial Documents
- Full ProsecutorbyKarpel Contract — Complete terms, total obligated amount, renewal provisions
- All Invoices — Every invoice from the start of the contract to the present
- Invoice #76350 (01/27/2026) — Already obtained via #26-46 but should be included in the complete set
- Invoice 10/26/2023 — Different from the 10/26/2021 invoice provided in #25-201
- Payment Records or Vouchers — Documentation of actual payments made
Cost Breakdown Documents
- Migration Cost Documents — Invoices or contracts for data migration services
- Training Cost Documents — Invoices for staff training on the new system
- Implementation Cost Documents — Costs for system implementation and configuration
- Hardware/Infrastructure Costs — Any costs for servers, equipment, or infrastructure
Summary Documents
- Total Obligated Amount — Document showing the total financial commitment over the full contract term
- Funding Source Documentation — Budget allocations, fund transfers, or other records showing which sources are paying for the system
- Future Cost Projections — Documents showing expected costs through the end of the contract term
Why This Matters
With over $109,000 in confirmed payments and “Year 4” billing confirmed through May 2028, the public deserves complete financial transparency:
Fiscal Responsibility
Taxpayers have a right to know:
- What is the TOTAL cost of this system?
- How much more will be paid beyond the confirmed $109,475?
- Are there costs beyond the invoices we’ve seen?
- Is the system cost-effective compared to alternatives?
Budget Transparency
The public deserves to know:
- Which funds are paying for ProsecutorbyKarpel?
- Is it the general fund, grants, state funds, or other sources?
- How are these costs allocated in the county budget?
- Are any federal funds involved?
Accountability
Without complete financial documentation, the public cannot:
- Evaluate whether the Prosecutor’s Office is managing taxpayer funds responsibly
- Assess whether the investment represents good value
- Hold elected officials accountable for spending decisions
- Understand the full scope of financial obligations
Future Planning
The “Year 4” billing reference confirms ongoing obligations. The public deserves to know:
- What is the total committed cost through the end of the contract?
- Are there renewal options beyond Year 4?
- What are the expected costs for future years?
- Will this system continue to cost taxpayers money indefinitely?
The Systematic Obstruction
This denial represents the culmination of a systematic pattern:
| FOIA Request | What Was Sought | What Was Provided | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| #25-201 | All financial records | Partial contract + 3 invoices | Incomplete |
| #26-44 | Migration status | 156 pages of emails | No direct answer |
| #26-45 | Migration timelines | NOTHING | DENIED |
| #26-46 | Contracts & invoices | 1 new invoice only | Other docs refused |
| #26-56 | Data exclusions | NOTHING | DENIED |
| #26-57 | Full financials | NOTHING | DENIED |
The Prosecutor’s Office is:
- Providing information in fragments
- Blocking access to complete records
- Using Densmore as a blanket excuse for multiple different requests
- Preventing the public from seeing the full picture
This is not transparency. This is obstruction by design.
The Stakes
At over $109,000 in confirmed payments with ongoing obligations through May 2028, ProsecutorbyKarpel represents a significant investment of taxpayer funds.
The public deserves to know:
- The full contractual commitment
- The total cost over the life of the system
- Where the money is coming from
- Whether there are additional costs we haven’t seen
- What the future financial obligations will be
Without this information, taxpayers cannot evaluate whether this investment is wise, efficient, or necessary.
What’s Next
An appeal of this denial has been filed with the Delta County Board of Commissioners. The appeal argues that:
- Densmore does not apply because many requested documents are new or different
- Information categories like funding sources and total amounts were never previously provided
- The 01/27/2026 invoice did not exist when #25-201 was processed
- The public has a compelling interest in complete financial transparency for a system costing over $100,000
- The cumulative effect of improper denials is systematic obstruction of public oversight
The Board of Commissioners has the authority to reverse this denial and order the complete financial records released.
The Bottom Line
The Prosecutor’s Office has spent at least $109,475 on ProsecutorbyKarpel, with confirmed billing through Year 4 (May 2028).
Yet they refuse to provide:
- The full contract
- All invoices
- Funding source information
- Total obligated amount
- Migration and training costs
- Any complete financial picture
They drip out information piece by piece while blocking access to the whole story.
That’s not transparency. That’s obstruction.
And it’s exactly why the FOIA process exists — to ensure that government cannot hide how it’s spending taxpayer money, no matter how inconvenient that transparency may be for the officials involved.
UPDATE: Appeals have been filed for Requests #26-45, #26-56, and #26-57. The Delta County Board of Commissioners is considering these appeals. We will update this page as decisions are made and documents are released.
Leave a comment