The bill, H.B. 391, defines vexatious request as “any request for documents which is frivolous, repetitive, or unreasonable and made for the primary purpose of harassing a public governmental body or any member of a public governmental body.” However, this definition still seems overly broad and vague. Agencies could easily misuse the authority to reject legitimate requests. For instance, an agency might seek to derail a request for information that would embarrass the agency or government officials. Also an agency might simply not realize the importance or usefulness of the requested data and instead rule the request as frivolous.

If an agency can summarily dismiss a request as vexatious, then a requester’s only recourse would be court. Many requestors do not have the financial resources to pursue a court case, even if they believe the vexatious determination to be inaccurate. This in itself would have a chilling effect on requests, reducing the number of requestors willing to proceed with their case, and slowing down those challenges. The bill provides that if a court finds a government agency to have intentionally misused the provision, then the requestor could recoup all costs and reasonable attorney fees from the agency. However, another provision of the bill states that if a court upholds a vexatious determination then the requestor may be charged with costs and attorney fees.

The bill was referred to the state’s Judiciary Committee on Feb. 17.