The Department of Corrections shouldn't have denied the second request of two local attorneys for information regarding the department's taping of telephone conversations, the State Records Committee has ruled.
Assistant attorney general Jim Beadles argued that the department denied the second request because it was an attempt by attorneys Brian Barnard and John Pace to correct procedural defects.Beadles said the denial was appropriate since a state agency can refuse a request if it's an unreasonable duplication. He said the motive for Barnard and Pace's second request made it un-rea-son-able.
"When the request has been made to bypass the law in an attempt to take back jurisdiction that you by your own negligence lost . . . " Beadles said.
Barnard filed a request for records from Corrections in October 1992. Barnard said he didn't receive a response in the allotted time, so he called and was told his request had been denied. The next day he filed a lawsuit against the department.
Several days after the lawsuit was filed, Barnard and Pace received a written response and some of the documents they had requested. Third District Judge Frank Noel dismissed the lawsuit last month because the attorneys hadn't exhausted the administrative appeals process.
"I'll admit I made a mistake according to Judge Noel," Barnard said. "But . . . I still don't know if they have any tape recordings of my conversations with clients."
Beadles said that the failure to follow the appeals process made the second request unreasonable. But the records committee disagreed.
"I don't think the second request was unreasonable," said committee member William Fehr. "You're public servants; you're supposed to help people."