There are jurisdictions that do that, but it doesn't work very effectively, because there are so many ways to get around it. However, three of my recommendations to the committee, which you've supported, go to address some of those complexities or issues.
One is giving discretion to the commissioner to investigate. So when I see or deem a use abusive, I can decline to investigate.
The other is to grant departments--and for this I'm not very popular among, particularly, those users--specific extensions for multiple submissions of requests. Where a department is being targeted by a user with a large number of requests, which you know they can't meet within 30 days because of the sheer volume, they should be able to consult with me and ask what a reasonable amount of time to fix that is. If they get agreement from my office, they can go ahead. Now, the requester is not very happy, but I think there's a reasonableness there that has to be brought into play.
The discretion of the commissioner, if you put those together, would I think bring some of these issues, through dialogue and discourse--I'm not saying an absolute refusal--with some of these users who.... I can't impute a motive, good or bad, financial or otherwise.
You may remember this chart I circulated to the committee.