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.

DISCUSSION The Open Meeting Law requires that, within 14 business days after receiving an Open Meeting Law complaint, a public body shall review the complaint's allegations; take remedial action, if appropriate; and send to the Attorney General's Office a copy of the complaint and a description of any remedial action taken. G.L. c. 30A, 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(5).

Within 14 business days of receiving a complaint, a public body must review the complaint's allegations; take remedial action, if appropriate; and send to the Attorney General's Office a copy of the complaint and a description of any remedial action taken. G.L. c. 30A, 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(4). We take this opportunity to remind the Board of its obligations under the Open Meeting Law.

The Open Meeting Law requires that, within 14 business days after receiving an Open Meeting Law complaint, a public body shall review the complaints allegations; take remedial action, if appropriate; and send to the Attorney Generals Office a copy of the complaint and a description of any remedial action taken. G.L. c. 30A, 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(5).

This determination addresses complaints 45 and 63. 3 One member of the Committee is an employee of the Attorney Generals Office. The complaints contain no allegations that are specific to the actions of that individual, and that individual played no role in this offices consideration of the complaints. 2 As an initial matter, we decline to review the May 24 complaint as it does not allege a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

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 these issues. Barry H. Johnson Page 3 July 24, 2023 SPR23/1578 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

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. If unresolved issues remain, I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the Open Meeting Law issues. Please note, Mr.

Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) and not this Dr. Ian Kelly Page 3 March 25, 2024 SPR24/0748 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.