OPM awaits legal advice from AG on release of PM’s travel records

Eliz­a­beth Gon­za­les

Se­nior Re­porter

eliz­a­beth.gon­za­[email protected]

The Of­fice of the Prime Min­is­ter (OPM) has spent near­ly six months de­cid­ing whether to grant a Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion re­quest for records show­ing how many over­seas trips the Prime Min­is­ter took, who trav­elled with her and the cost it had on tax­pay­ers.

Last Fri­day, in re­sponse to Guardian Me­dia, the OPM sought a fifth 30-day ex­ten­sion, say­ing on­ly that the ap­pli­ca­tion was “cur­rent­ly re­ceiv­ing at­ten­tion”.

The lat­est ex­ten­sion comes af­ter the Of­fice said it need­ed le­gal ad­vice from the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al be­cause of the “high-lev­el na­ture” of meet­ings at­tend­ed dur­ing those trips.

Guardian Me­dia sub­mit­ted the re­quest on Feb­ru­ary 9. The OPM said it re­ceived it on Feb­ru­ary 18.

As of Au­gust 8, 171 days lat­er, the OPM had nei­ther ap­proved nor re­fused the re­quest. It had al­so re­leased none of the records.

The re­quest cov­ers of­fi­cial re­gion­al and in­ter­na­tion­al trav­el un­der­tak­en by the Prime Min­is­ter from April 28, 2025.

It seeks a list of all trips, des­ti­na­tions, dates, pur­pos­es and the names and of­fi­cial ti­tles of every­one who ac­com­pa­nied the Prime Min­is­ter.

It al­so asks for an itemised break­down of air­fare, ac­com­mo­da­tion, per diem or non-ac­count­able al­lowances, ground trans­porta­tion, se­cu­ri­ty costs and any oth­er trav­el ex­pens­es paid from pub­lic funds.

Since as­sum­ing of­fice, the Prime Min­is­ter has made at least five over­seas trips in­clud­ing to the Unit­ed Na­tions Gen­er­al As­sem­bly in New York and the Shield of the Amer­i­c­as in Do­ral, Flori­da.

Guardian Me­dia re­quest­ed copies of trav­el ap­provals, vouch­ers, in­voic­es, re­ceipts, Cab­i­net ap­provals and records iden­ti­fy­ing pub­lic of­fi­cers, ad­vis­ers and aides whose trav­el ex­pens­es were paid or fa­cil­i­tat­ed by the OPM.

The OPM has now sent five let­ters seek­ing ad­di­tion­al pe­ri­ods of 30 days in­stead of de­cid­ing on the re­quest.

In its first let­ter, dat­ed March 18, the OPM said the ap­pli­ca­tion was “cur­rent­ly be­ing processed”.

It re­quest­ed “an ex­ten­sion of time of thir­ty (30) days” from the date of the let­ter “in or­der to com­pose an ap­pro­pri­ate re­sponse”.

No records were re­leased dur­ing that pe­ri­od.

On April 16, the OPM re­quest­ed an­oth­er 30 days.

This time, it said, “Please be ad­vised that your re­quest is be­ing for­ward­ed to the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al for le­gal ad­vice on how to treat with it.”

It again re­quest­ed “a fur­ther ex­ten­sion of time of thir­ty (30) days” to re­spond.

Guardian Me­dia chal­lenged the de­lay that same day.

An email sent to OPM Ad­min­is­tra­tive Of­fi­cer Rhon­da Roberts read, “Re­fer­ring the mat­ter for le­gal ad­vice does not an­swer the re­quest nor re­duce what is be­ing asked for.”

The email added, “The re­quest re­mains out­stand­ing.”

Guardian Me­dia point­ed to Sec­tion 15 of the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act, which re­quires a de­ci­sion on a re­quest no lat­er than 30 days af­ter it is du­ly made, ei­ther grant­i­ng ac­cess or re­fus­ing ac­cess with rea­sons.

The OPM was asked to iden­ti­fy the spe­cif­ic pro­vi­sion of the Act be­ing re­lied up­on for the ex­ten­sion.

It was al­so asked to state any ex­emp­tion it in­tend­ed to use, pro­vide rea­sons for any re­fusal and con­firm a new date for com­plet­ing the re­quest.

On May 15, the OPM sent a third ex­ten­sion let­ter.

It said it was “present­ly await­ing le­gal ad­vice from the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al on how to treat with your re­quest”.

It re­quest­ed an­oth­er 30 days “pend­ing re­ceipt of that ad­vice”.

The OPM had the re­quest for al­most three months at that time.

On Ju­ly 10, the OPM is­sued a fourth let­ter. It did not say whether the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al’s ad­vice had been re­ceived.

It re­quest­ed an­oth­er 30 day ex­ten­sion.

In an email re­spond­ing to Guardian Me­dia’s ques­tions about the de­lay, Roberts gave a full ex­pla­na­tion for seek­ing le­gal ad­vice.

Roberts said, “Giv­en the high-lev­el na­ture of the meet­ings at­tend­ed by the Ho­n­ourable Prime Min­is­ter dur­ing of­fi­cial over­seas trav­el with­in the pe­ri­od spec­i­fied in your re­quest, it is nec­es­sary to ob­tain le­gal ad­vice from the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.”

She said the ad­vice was need­ed to en­sure that any de­ci­sion com­plied with the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Act, in­clud­ing the con­sid­er­a­tion and ap­pli­ca­tion of any rel­e­vant ex­emp­tions and, where ap­plic­a­ble, the pub­lic-in­ter­est test un­der Sec­tion 35.

Roberts added, “The re­quest for an ex­ten­sion is not in­tend­ed to de­lay the process un­nec­es­sar­i­ly, but rather to fa­cil­i­tate a law­ful and prop­er­ly con­sid­ered de­ci­sion on your re­quest.”

She said a de­ci­sion grant­i­ng ac­cess in full or in part, or re­fus­ing ac­cess, would be com­mu­ni­cat­ed af­ter the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al’s ad­vice was re­ceived.

She al­so said that if any part of the re­quest was re­fused, the OPM would iden­ti­fy the ex­emp­tions un­der the Act and pro­vide rea­sons.

On Au­gust 7, the OPM sent a fifth let­ter for a 30-day ex­ten­tions.

Un­like the April and May let­ters, the Au­gust 7 let­ter did not men­tion the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al’s le­gal ad­vice or state whether it had been re­ceived.

The let­ter di­rect­ed fur­ther en­quiries to Car­ol Roopan, who was iden­ti­fied as the Free­dom of In­for­ma­tion Of­fi­cer.

The OPM first said on April 16 that it was for­ward­ing the mat­ter for le­gal ad­vice. As of Au­gust 8, that was 114 days ago.

It con­firmed on May 15 that it was await­ing the ad­vice. That was 85 days ago.