Kelleher requested: [1] Copies of the complaint filed by [an identified individual] with the Attorney Generals office on November 7, and any related documents . . . [such as] request for a further review[; and] [2] Copies of all emails and meeting minutes drafts from our clerk . . . including any new drafts of meeting minutes created by [an identified individual] from [the clerk]s drafts.

The Commission is reminded that unless an extension of time has been granted, a public body must, within 14 business days of receipt of an Open Meeting Law complaint, meet to review the complaint, respond to the complainant, send a copy of the complaint to the Attorney Generals Office and notify the Attomey Generals Office of any remedial action taken.

Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes.

I conferred with Jonathan Sclarsic, Director of the Division of Open Government of the Attorney General's Office (AGO), regarding this appeal. Attorney Sclarsic declined to provide an informal opinion given that the AGO is currently reviewing the matter to determine whether a valid Open Meeting Law issue exists.

Assistant Attorney General/Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Tarrow: I have. received the petition of Collin Dias appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 27, 2019, Mr.

Salvatore Petralia Page Two May 13,2014 SPR14/258 Furthermore, when discussing the application of Exemption (c) to withhold records concerning professional qualifications, the Attorney General's Office opined that professional training and experience were not exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law. 1976-77 Op. Atty Gen. Mass. 157 at 12.

It is recommended that the parties contact the Attorney Generals Office if they seek a determination on this issue. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Keaney Lauren F. Goldberg, Esq.

The Departments June 23rd response In its June 23, 2022, response, the Department attached a February 11, 2021 decision from the Attorney Generals Office regarding a similar matter, and indicated that it . . . is entitled to charge the requestor for the time spent redacting such information[.]

Shibley is aware have been found to be exempt from disclosure in decisions by the Attorney Generals Office on his identical and overlapping requests made for the same documents in the past. Otherwise, they seek records that do not existFurthermore, Mr. Shibleys most recent series of requests were made as a series within a short time frame.

Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on these issues. Victor Garofalo Page 3 December 15, 2021 SPR21/3153 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed.