Public records request volume has been climbing steadily for years, but the nature of that increase is changing in ways that matter for how clerk offices manage their workload, their documentation, and their risk. It’s not just more requests. It’s more complex requests, faster turnaround expectations, and a new category of high-volume, AI-assisted filings that some local offices are encountering for the first time.

This post doesn’t offer legal guidance, but an honest look at what’s driving the surge, where workflow tends to break down under volume, and what a defensible, organized process looks like when the inbox doesn’t slow down.

What’s Driving Public Records Request Volume

At the federal level, the trend is documented and significant. According to the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida, federal agencies received more than 1.5 million Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in fiscal year 2024 — a 25 percent increase over the prior year — with backlogs rising 33 percent over the same period. The percentage of requests fully granted hit an all-time low of 12 percent, down from 38 percent in 2010, as complexity and volume outpaced available staff.

State and local trends mirror this pattern. In Pennsylvania, nearly 4,000 public records appeals were filed in 2025. The majority were by private citizens rather than journalists or organizations, reflecting a growing public awareness of records rights and a willingness to push back on denials.

The requests themselves are also taking longer to process. More requesters are seeking multi-department records, electronically stored information, communications logs, and other materials that require coordination across offices and careful review before release.

The AI Factor

A newer pressure is arriving in the form of AI-assisted records request tools. These platforms allow users — individuals, advocacy groups, or paying customers — to file large volumes of records requests automatically, often across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.

Government Technology reported in August 2024 that Somerset County, Pennsylvania’s chief clerk began receiving dozens of AI-generated requests per day through a service called FOIA Buddy, which files open records requests on behalf of paying customers. The volume was significant enough that the county commissioners adopted a resolution addressing anonymous requests, and Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records issued a formal alert recommending that agencies review their internal policies.

This isn’t an isolated incident. AI-assisted advocacy tools are generating high volumes of templated communications to local government offices across multiple states, and records request platforms are part of that ecosystem. Each request, regardless of how it was generated, typically carries the same legal obligation to respond.

The practical consequence for a clerk’s office — particularly a small one — is that a single campaign can generate a workload spike that bears no relationship to available staff capacity. That’s a workflow problem, not just a volume problem.

Where Workflow Breaks Down

When public records request volume exceeds capacity, the failure points tend to be predictable. Recognizing them in advance is the first step toward managing them.

Intake without a system. When requests arrive through multiple channels — email, mail, online portal, in person — and there’s no centralized log, it’s easy for requests to be missed, duplicated, or left without a tracked response date. A single missed statutory deadline can create significant risk downstream.

Redaction without a process. Multi-document requests that require redaction of exempt information are time-consuming under any circumstances. Without a documented, consistent approach to what gets redacted and why, offices expose themselves to challenges on both sides: over-disclosure and under-disclosure.

No audit trail. A defensible response to a records request isn’t just the records themselves. It’s documentation of what was searched, what was found, what was withheld, and why. When volume is high and time is short, that documentation step is often the first thing that gets skipped. It’s also the first thing a requester or appellate body will ask for.

Undocumented decisions. When a staff member makes a judgment call about scope, exemptions, or response format without written documentation, that decision lives only in that person’s memory. In an office already managing staffing gaps and vacation coverage, that’s a vulnerability.

No escalation path. Not every request is straightforward. Offices that don’t have a clear protocol for when to escalate to the municipal attorney — and when that consultation needs to happen before the response goes out — are more likely to make costly errors under pressure.

What a Defensible Process Looks Like

Defensibility doesn’t require a large staff or expensive software. It requires consistency and documentation. A few foundational elements make a significant difference.

A centralized intake log. Every request, regardless of how it arrives, should be logged in one place with a date received, a statutory response deadline, an assigned staff member, and a status field. This doesn’t need to be sophisticated — a shared spreadsheet works — but it needs to exist and be maintained.

A written response workflow. Staff shouldn’t have to reconstruct the process from memory each time. A simple written workflow covering intake, logging, search scope, review, redaction, response, and documentation makes the process transferable and auditable.

Standard language for common situations. Offices handling high volume benefit from having reviewed, approved language for common response scenarios — acknowledgment letters, extension notices, exemption citations, and denial letters. That language should be reviewed by your municipal attorney before it’s put into use.

A clear escalation protocol. Define in writing which types of requests require attorney review before response, and at what point in the process that review needs to happen. Make sure all staff who handle requests know the protocol and follow it consistently.

Documentation of the search itself. For each request, keep a record of where you searched, what search terms or criteria you used, what you found, and what determination you made about each document. This record protects the office if the response is later challenged.

The Small Office Reality

For a clerk’s office with one or two staff members handling records requests alongside meeting management, elections, board support, and — in many smaller communities — finance and HR functions, these recommendations can feel like an unfunded mandate. That’s a fair reaction.

The goal isn’t a perfect system built overnight. It’s incremental improvement toward a process that holds up under scrutiny. Even a basic intake log and a one-page written workflow is meaningfully better than nothing, and it creates a foundation that can be built on over time.

It’s also worth connecting with your state association and peer networks. Many state municipal leagues and clerk associations have developed model policies and response templates that offices can adapt rather than build from scratch.

A Note on Technology

Let’s be clear: board and meeting management platforms aren’t records request management systems. Where they can reduce downstream burden is in keeping board documents, meeting minutes, resolutions, and related materials organized and accessible in the first place. When a records request comes in for materials related to board or committee action, having those records well-organized and retrievable saves significant staff time. OnBoardGOV’s Meeting Center is one option.

Purpose-built records request management tools exist and may be worth evaluating for offices with sustained high volume — but that’s a separate procurement conversation, and one that should involve your IT staff and municipal attorney.

What Can Clerk Offices Do When Public Records Request Volume Keeps Climbing?

The volume trend isn’t reversing. AI-assisted request tools are becoming more accessible, public awareness of records rights is growing, and the legal obligations attached to each request aren’t changing. What clerk offices can control is the process they bring to managing that volume — and whether that process is documented, consistent, and defensible when it needs to be.

The most effective approach combines a centralized intake log, a written response workflow, standard language for common scenarios, a clear escalation protocol, and consistent documentation of search decisions. None of that requires a large staff. It requires discipline and a process that doesn’t live only in someone’s head.

That’s what holds up when the volume spikes. Right now, volume is spiking.