Opinion ID: 2211455
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of Plaintiff's Request

Text: The FOIA does not establish detailed requirements for a valid request. Instead, it merely requires that a request describe[ ] the public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record. MCL 15.233(1); MSA 4.1801(3)(1). Defendants argue that plaintiff's request failed to meet this basic requirement. We disagree. In this case, plaintiff requested the names, current job titles, cities of residence and age of the seven final candidates for the job of Bay City fire chief. The city admits that this description was sufficient to allow it to find documents containing the information, but argues that the request was flawed because it requested the information itself, rather than documents containing the information. [7] Also according to defendants, to satisfy plaintiff's request, the city would have had to create a new public record. Defendants' arguments are deeply flawed. We begin by reiterating that the Legislature entitled this statute the Freedom of Information Act, and declared as the public policy of this state that all persons... are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government.... MCL 15.231(2); MSA 4.1801(1)(2) (emphasis added). Consistent with this stated purpose, the Legislature did not impose detailed or technical requirements as a precondition for granting the public access to information. Instead, the Legislature simply required that any request be sufficiently descriptive to allow the public body to find public records containing the information sought. In contrast, the city would have us read an additional requirement into the statutethat a request must describe the specific public records to be disclosed. We have no authority to impose requirements not found in the statute, and we note that it would be odd indeed to ask a party who has no access to public records to attempt specifically to describe them. Because the request in this case was sufficient to allow the city to find the requested information, the request was valid under M.C.L. § 15.233(1); MSA 4.1801(3)(1). Defendants' related argument contends that plaintiff's request would have required the city to create a new public recordsomething the statute expressly states that the city is not required to do. MCL 15.233(4); MSA 4.1801(3)(4). Again, we disagree with defendants' construction of the FOIA. Plaintiff's request did not specify or require the disclosure of any document, newly created or otherwise, from the city. It simply asked for information. Under the FOIA, the city could have satisfied the request in several different ways. It could have allowed plaintiff access to the public records containing the information (such as the applicants' resumes or applications), it could have allowed plaintiff to copy the public records containing the information, or it could have provided plaintiff with copies of the public records containing the information. MCL 15.233(1); MSA 4.1801(3)(1). It is true that the request also could have been satisfied by the city's creation of a new public record, but plaintiff did not request creation of such a record, and the fact that the city had no obligation to create a record says nothing about its obligation to satisfy plaintiff's request in some other manner as required by the FOIA. [8]