Columnist presented an inaccurate picture of Maine Municipal Association’s positions.

The Lewiston Sun Journal’s commentary on Feb. 16 (“MMA wears crown of royalty well”) provided an extremely inaccurate accounting of the Maine Municipal Association’s testimony to the Legislature with respect to a wide range of statutory changes to Maine’s Freedom of Access Act that were recommended by a 16-member study committee.

We take exception both to the depiction of our spokesperson, Geoff Herman, director of state and federal relations, as well as the inaccuracy of the actual testimony he offered on behalf of the MMA Legislative Policy Committee.

Specifically, the commentary stated that the Maine Municipal Association “spit in the eye” of the study committee by speaking “against nearly all of the (study committee’s) recommendations.”

That assertion is patently incorrect. Although the commentary elected not to mention any of the recommendations or any of MMA’s testimony with respect to those recommendations, your readers

deserve to know the facts.

Here they are:

The study committee made 11 specific recommendations that would amend (or, in one case, retain) current statutory provisions in Maine’s Freedom of Information Act. MMA testified in opposition to just two of those 11 recommendations and in support of four. MMA offered alternative language with respect to the other five recommendations, all of which would retain the underlying goal of the recommendation but in a way that, from the municipal perspective, would make the amended statute more workable and effective.

Specifically, the study committee recommended fixing in law a maximum photocopying fee that municipalities could charge of 20 cents per page. The state’s court system, the county’s registry of deeds and police accident reports would be exempt from that limit for reasons that are unclear. In any event, to avoid the problem that always arises when a specific dollar value is fixed in statute, MMA recommended setting the maximum rate at the “customarily charged commercial rate” to avoid having to amend the statute for inflationary adjustments over time.

Similarly, the study committee recommended requiring all towns to give two free hours of town labor to research freedom of information requests, and to cap all additional hours of research at $10 an hour. Although we failed to see the evidence to compel such a mandate, MMA testified that one free hour made the point, and a cap of the employee’s actual hourly rate would serve the same purpose without having to be amended over time.

And again, the study committee recommended prohibiting municipalities from asking for any payment in advance for photocopying or research to be paid in advance unless the request would involve two or more full days of labor by a municipal employee and 500 or more photocopies.

Towns have been burned by these expensive requests in the past because the town’s research was never picked up by the person requesting the documents.

MMA suggested a lower threshold would be warranted.

It is also only fair to explain MMA’s opposition to two of the study committee’s recommendations.

The study committee recommended establishing additional duties in the Attorney General’s Office to provide information, mediation and training assistance regarding the freedom of information law. Purely on the basis of the availability and priority of state financial resources, MMA spoke in opposition to this proposal.

Also, the study committee recommended that local, regional and state boards be required to cite the correct statutory provision authorizing an executive session before entering the executive session. MMA merely testified to its impression that the citation of cold statute (“I move we go into executive session pursuant to Title 1 MRSA, section 405, sub-section 6(A)(1).”) seems ultimately less effective in explaining the reason for the executive session than simply stating the reason (e.g., “to discuss a sensitive personnel matter”).

We certainly respect the work of the Freedom of Access Laws study committee and appreciated the opportunity to have a member of our legal services staff participate as a member of the committee and offer information regarding the practical applications of the Freedom of Access Laws. It is important to note, however, that the MMA Legislative Policy Committee, composed of 70 municipal officials from throughout Maine, is responsible for adopting policy positions and providing guidance to MMA’s legislative staff. As noted above, the Legislative Policy Committee concurred with a number of the recommendations and offered constructive suggestions with respect to several other recommendations.

We believe it’s a good thing when entities that are affected by proposed legislation present recommendations when new laws are being considered so that the outcome, at least from their perspective, might be more effective.

Christopher Lockwood is the executive director of the Maine Municipal Association.

Copy the Story Link