At first, it looked as though I was going to get the records I'd requested. Although it was long past the required 10-day response period, Peter Wilson, Deputy General Counsel at DCAM, wrote me on July 21, saying I should make an appointment to come in to review the records. I contacted Wilson's assistant, who told me she was attempting to track the records down. Weeks went by, and I checked in periodically.
Then, on August 21, I received a one-paragraph letter from Wilson, this time denying my request. In his letter, Wilson stated that the requested records were exempt from disclosure because they “relate to policy positions being developed” by the state. Wilson's letter added:
The purpose of this exemption is to allow government offices to deliberate and form policy by engaging in free and frank exchange of options and ideas, which would be inhibited by public scrutiny. [emphasis added]
Does the Public Records Law really have an exemption that talks about promoting the “free and frank exchange of options and ideas” and preventing that from being “inhibited by public scrutiny?”
I didn't think so. Here's the exemption in question. It states only that exempt documents include “inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency.” The exemption says nothing about feasibility sudies or estimates of the cost of state construction or renovation projects. It seemed to me that a feasibility study and cost estimate for a specific construction project does not involve the development of policy.
Moreover, the law states that this exemption shall not apply to “reasonably completed factual studies or reports.” In late August, I received a letter from Department of Developmental Services Commissioner Elin Howe, stating that bidding on the Wrentham project was scheduled for September, with a contract award scheduled for this month. If that was the case, any feasibility study on the project would have had to be completed by the time Wilson was denying my request.
My appeal to the state Public Records Division has been pending since August 27. This would seem to be an open-and-shut case. Yet, it took me weeks to get through to the Public Records attorney who has been handling it. Yesterday, he apologized for the delay. But one has to wonder, what the hangup is here. The attorney, by the way, has not requested Elin Howe's letter to me.
I'm not optimistic about ever getting these records, given the findings of a CommonWealth magazine article last year about the routine flouting of the Public Records law by agencies throughout state government.
The Wrentham records are one of two public records requests that DCAM has denied the Fernald League. I'll write about the saga of our second request in a future post.