THE BLACKBALLED REQUEST

Below is the text of the Freedom of Information Act request L.A.W.'s office manager Mary Hines, my brother Brian Tingley, and I separately made to the City of Grand Rapids.  I invite our readers to send in the same request to see if the City will also refuse to release the documents to you on the basis of some tenuous connection with me.  If prominent developers in River City made false statement to City officials to improperly reduce their tax assessment, we are entitled to know that information.  It's time for the City to stop blackballing the following request:

[your name & return address]

[date]

Grand Rapids City Attorney’s Office

Office of FOIA Coordinator

300 Monroe Avenue, N.W.

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503

Re: Freedom of Information Act request

Dear Sirs:

I request a copy of certain public records pertaining to the property located at the 900-1100 block of Monroe Avenue N.W., commonly known as “The Boardwalk” including:

1. The building permit submitted by Pioneer Inc. for the main building representing the cost of improvements as “$150,000,000” [sic] and for the parking ramp representing the cost of improvements as “$5,000,000”;

2. A letter and all attachments from Thomas E. Beckering to the City of Grand Rapids, dated about February 2001, representing the actual cost of the Boardwalk project as $31.5 million;

3. A letter and all attachments from the developer of the Boardwalk to the City of Grand Rapids representing the actual cost of the project as $20 million (this is the letter City Assessor Glen Beekman identified in an e-mail message to City Manager Kurt Kimball on April 28, 2005, at 4:28 p.m.);

4. All other records that the developers or contractors of the Boardwalk project submitted to the City of Grand Rapids as proof of the project’s cost.

I make this request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, Public Act 442 of 1976. I do not wish to inspect these records first, so please send copies to my mailing address at the top of this letter. For purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I am not seeking information for a commercial use. Specifically I am asking for these records for the purpose of making them public, therefore under City policy no fee would be appropriate. If you conclude that a fee is applicable, please inform me first.

Sincerely,

[your name]

Good luck!

Comments

[RHarrison]

I'll give it a shot.

[Kim Hooker]

I'm sending mine this morning.

[Karen Thomas]

Mine will be in the mail this morning!

[The Executive Director]

A big thanks to all of you, and good luck.

Asst. City Atty Ophoff will probably be the one to respond to your requests. Before complying with them, he might ask what relationship, if any, you have with me. Even though none exists, you are not obligated to tell him.

You may want to stand on principle and refuse to tell him (as Brian Tingley did). However, as a practical matter, answering his inquiry will probably get you the documents.

Keep me posted on what happens, and thanks again for going after this important information.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director

[Brian Tingley]

bill, you are mistaken if you think the surrender monkey "shredder" ophoff is going to "give" anyone this public information. he will destroy it first, if he hasn't done so already.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Brian.

Yes, Ophoff is unethical.

As you know, the last time Ophoff would not turn over documents we asked for in a FOIA request, we had to sue the City. We then asked for the documents in discovery. Ophoff didn't turn them over by the deadline, which meant we had the right to ask the judge to compel Ophoff to release the documents.

To stop us from doing so, Ophoff asked our lawyer for an extension of time in order to work out an arrangement with his superiors for releasing the documents. Our lawyer agreed. But it was a trick. Ophoff used the extension to destroy the documents instead.

So Ophoff is a liar and fraud whose last consideration is the taxpayer who pays his salary.

However, I don't think he'll destroy the documents involved in the current controversy. They constitute evidence in a pending federal inquiry, and I don't think Ophoff is as foolish as to follow the Anderson/Enron route.

Regards,
your older, smarter, and better-looking brother

[RHarrison]

Well I got a response in the mail today - Ophoff has extended the time to respond by ten business days "because of the time and effort required to search for the records you have requested."

[The Executive Director]

Hi, RHarrison.

That response is good news. The City often needs the extension when it is going to disclose requested documents. Please keep us posted.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director

[Rharrison]

Got my approval letter from Ophoff today, saying that it'll cost $15 to have the records forwarded to me. I'll be putting a check in the mail this afternoon after work.

[Kthomas]

Got my approval letter in the mail today. I'll will put a check in the mail today!

Karen

[The Executive Director]

Thanks, Bob. Thanks, Karen. Apparently Ophoff has figured out that he can obstruct the FOIA process only so far. Let us know what you receive from the City.

Best regards,
Bill

[Rharrision]

Got the FOIA paperwork in the mail this morning. However, Ophoff deemed my request in paragraphs 2 and 3 as "insuffciently specific for the City to undertake a search to locate these letters." If I provide additional detail about to whom these letters were sent, he'll be able to undertake a more productive search.

[The Executive Director]

Thanks for the info, Bob. I'll follow up with an e-mail message to you.

Regards, Bill