You also note that the Department "consulted with the Attorney General's Office which received the same request and whose position is consistent with this response." Despite this response, it remains unclear how the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G.

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 status of the executive session minutes.

The discussions between the Commission's legal staff and Attorney General's Office are protected, confidential communications, particularly in this situation where the requestor was the opposing counsel in the underlying matter."

Second, the complaint 3 Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney General's office; www.mass.gov/ago/openmeeting. 2 argues that, because the true purpose of the executive session was to discuss complaints against Ms. Samacki, the Board improperly denied her the right to be present for the discussion. After reviewing the executive session minutes, we disagree.

See OML Declination 1-25-16 (Nahant Housing Authority Board of Commissioners). 2 One Commission member is an employee of the Attorney Generals Office. The Complainant informed us that that member was among those who left the meeting room promptly after the meeting ended.

The Chair stated that, after consulting with the Attorney Generals Office, the IT Subcommittee would seek to remedy any Open Meeting Law violation by creating minutes of the December 1 meeting and disclosing the discussion that had taken place. The Chair and the CAFO then discussed the status of the contract, the reason for the delays, and a plan for moving forward, which were all matters that had been discussed on December 1.

Prior to April 2004, she worked at various times as an employee of the Commonwealths Division of Labor and Industries, Department of Public Health and the Attorney Generals Office. The Appellant has a civil service seniority date of October 22, 1980. (Exhibit 1 and Stipulated Facts) 2. The Appellant reached the top salary step of her position as an Accountant I in February 2003. The top salary step is known as Grade 14.

Specifically, I am requesting any correspondence, including but not limited to emails, letters, and records of phone conversations, between the chair and [an identified individual] from the Attorney Generals office during the period of September 20, 2024, through October 23, 2024.

Herman: I have received your letter appealing the response of the Attorney General's Office to your request for records. I have directed a member of my staff, Barbara Durgin, Esq., to review this matter. Upon completion of the review, I will advise you in writing of the disposition of this case. If in the interim you receive a satisfactory response to your request, please notify this office immediately.

Harris to file the complaint with the Attorney General's Office in a letter dated June 8, 2010. The Committee responded to Mr. Harris's complaint in an email sent to Mr. Harris on or about June 28, 2010. Our office reviewed the initial complaint filed with the Middlesex District Attorney's Office; the complaint filed with our office; the response by the Committee to Mr.