On November 16, 2007, I hand delivered the following to the Middleboro Keeper of Public Records, the Town Clerk and requested that a copy be forwarded to the Middleboro Board of Selectmen:
On October 23, 2007, I submitted a request for 9 public documents, as well as a request for the opportunity to review Executive Sessions that have become Public Record (copy of request attached).
You subsequently made me aware on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, that the costs of those documents would be $115.00.
I would call to your attention the following information contained in the above-mentioned sites:
Is a records custodian required to provide an estimate for copies of public records?The Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) require that a records custodian provide a detailed, written, good faith estimate for the cost of complying with a public record request when the cost of compliance is expected to exceed ten ($10.00) dollars.
The estimate should contain a statement advising the requester that the actual cost of producing the record might vary once the custodian begins preparing the record. A records custodian may require payment of the estimated fee before commencing work.
In the interest of open government, all records custodians are strongly urged to waive the fees associated with access to public records, but are not required to do so under the law.
Public records that are of great interest to a large number of people must be readily available within the office of the records custodian and should be provided at a minimum cost, if any. These records include minutes of local board meetings, town meeting documents, warrants, street lists, municipal financial documents, etc.
Public inspection and copies of records
G. L. c. 66, § 10
(d) The clerk of every city or town shall post, in a conspicuous place in the city or town hall in the vicinity of the clerk’s office, a brief printed statement that any citizen may, at his discretion, obtain copies of certain public records from local officials for a fee as provided for in this chapter.
Based on the above, I challenge the ‘FEES’ were not estimated or disclosed in advance, not publicly posted, but instead are unreasonable and intended to discourage public requests for public documents.
In addition, I would further call to your attention the following:
Item #1 requested: Statement that was provided to the BOS by IT Director, Roger Brunelle during the July 30, 2007 Selectmen’s Meeting itemizing the expenditures for the STM.
The statement indicated the total costs were: $74,450.
Item #2 requested: Bids received regarding those expenditures.
Item #3 requested: Statement of expenditures and monies received regarding the July 28, 2007 STM used to determine the amounts on the Nov. 5, 2007 STM Warrant.
Item #4 requested: The DOR correspondence discussed during the July 17, 2007 Selectmen’s Meeting specifically indicating circumstances/authorization for deficit spending.
Item #5 requested: Itemized list provided by the Interim Fire Chief at the October 15, 2007 Selectmen’s Meeting indicating necessary building and equipment repairs.
All of the above items were discussed during public Selectmen’s Meetings and should be part of the public record posted on the Town’s Web Site as part of the Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes, but are not.
Items #1,2, & 3 have been repeatedly discussed at public meetings, but not disclosed to the Finance Committee until the day of the Special Town Meeting, November 5, 2007.
Item #5 was distributed to the media and widely commented on.
Shouldn’t that appear as part of the Selectmen’s Meeting minutes?
Regarding the following items, I would argue that all except Item #9 should have been readily available and easily accessed from the Town Treasurer’s records. In addition, it is arguable that all except item #9 should have been presented at the October 15, 2007 Board of Selectmen’s Meeting at which the subject was initiated. Surely, the Board would intend to make an informed decision of this magnitude based on factual history.
6. Invoice pertaining to the completed refurbishing to the Middleboro ladder truck that should total approximately $130,000. (I believe those repairs were completed by Greenwood.)
7. Invoice pertaining to repairs performed prior to July 1, 2007, to the Middleboro ladder truck.
8. Certification issued regarding the Middleboro ladder truck subsequent to refurbishing in Item #6.
9. Evaluation regarding the current condition of the Middleboro ladder truck, when received.
As such, I request that all associated fees be waived and my request for an opportunity to review Executive Sessions that are now public record be addressed.
Public Records Disclosure
# 1
Public Records Disclosure
# 2
