I had to deal with some requests from individuals that attempt to bog down state agencies with requests. It would become particularly meddlesome when we had people ask for information while legislators were also making requests when either their committees or the entire legislature were in session. In my situation, I was the only person available that was familiar with both the data and the computer information systems to respond to those requests. That placed me in the situation where I had to work extra work hours (receiving straight 1:1 comp time versus any overtime pay) because state law only allowed 10 days to respond to the request with either a) we don't have the information, b) we can provide the information or c) the law is unclear and the request was sent to the attorney general's office for an opinion.
Ultimately, the decision was made that in keeping with the spirit of the open records laws of the state that we would provide data sets to the person making the request, respond to general questions about the data, and explain how to import the data into either spreadsheets or relational databases. However, I was not responsible to analyze data, interpret the data or compile reports on data that was not readily available. If I had performed those functions then it wouldn't have been possible for me to perform my essential job function. There also was not enough demand during other time periods to justify hiring another employee for that job function.
In addition, the state was allowed to charge a reasonable amount to provide the information requested. That included not only a base cost for the media (computer diskettes), mailing, reimbursement to the state for the amount of time that I spent fulfilling the request, and other time such as telephone conversations to the requester to define the parameters of the request. An estimate of the costs was provided to the requester in writing and if they agreed then we fulfilled the request.
Looking at the request mentioned in the first paragraph I suspect that the answers would most likely fall along these lines:
1) Oregon: I suspect that the data is not being collected or if it was collected the information not be compiled into a format readily available for the public (e.g., electronic data not available and exists only in paper reports or forms). Whether the reports (or paper forms) were releasable to the public would also be subject to confidentiality laws. On the project that I worked on the individual paper forms were confidential while electronic data was stripped of information identifying individuals or the business entities filing the form. If hard copy information was sent then the agency could charge for the clerical costs of identifying, copying and mailing that information.
2) Louisiana: I suspect that the data in this case was (or should have been) readily available to the agency receiving the request. Other than purging identifying information on the people that are the subject of the report and the reporting entity (e.g., student names, claimant names, patient names, physicians or insurance companies filing the reports), the request should be addressed and reasonable charges made (usually CPU time, diskettes, amount for employee wages).
3) Kentucky: That information is almost certainly considered to be confidential and not compiled. I could understand why an open records request would be denied and the agency should respond with the pertinent laws as to why the information cannot be released.
FWIW, I am for transparency in government records to the fullest extent possible. However, there cannot be total transparency because of the damage (both public and personal) that can occur when information is divulged. When it reaches the point that citizens are requesting information that it interferes with essential job functions or because of maliciousness then it is an abuse of the system. I read about this happening in my hometown where I was raised when a "concerned citizens" group made repeated demands (not even requests) for information nearly every week. They effectively paralyzed the operation of the town (population about 2,500) because there were only a half-dozen people in the office and they would have had to hire and train more personnel to respond when the town was having a budget crisis.
From my personal experience, I will note that when requesters were provided an estimated charge (usually $50-$100 for computer data) that many of the requests were withdrawn. Those that have a justifiable basis for the information were served within the spirit of the law and willing to pay the expense, but there is a difference between "freedom of information" and "free information". If someone wants public information to support a project, cause or personal vendetta then they should not expect taxpayers to pay those expenses.
= new reply since forum marked as read