Public commenter and committee press staff on $2,060 records redaction cost; committee weighs in on in‑house redaction and lost revenue

A public commenter told the Finance & Human Resources Committee on July 21 that he was concerned about legal expenses tied to public records and about recent staff turnover. Kevin Pensinal, who identified himself at the start of public comment, said he had seen “legal expense for $42,000 regarding a record request” in the packet and questioned why so much was spent to process records that he described as belonging to village residents. The committee discussed a separate, specific open‑records request that staff said cost the village $2,060 to redact — a process handled after custodians assembled the material and an attorney reviewed and redacted sensitive content. A staff speaker explained: “The records were pulled by the custodians of each record. They were provided to the attorney, and the attorney did the redaction.” Committee members and staff then compared the village’s internal capacity to handle redactions. A committee member calculated the village charged about $150 for the request and said, “So we lost $1,900 on an open records request. Yes. We did.” Several members suggested exploring in‑house redaction training as a cost control measure; staff said this particular request was unusually broad and included personal cell‑phone material that raised redaction and legal‑exposure questions. Nut graf: the exchange combined a public comment about a large legal‑expense line with committee review of a single, costly redaction job. The committee did not adopt a formal policy change but agreed to consider whether some redaction work could be done in house to reduce future attorney bills. Additional points discussed - Public comment: Pensinal also asked about a number he gave for possible parcel counts and urged the committee to consider per‑parcel fee approaches during the fire‑fee discussion; he also raised turnover, saying “in 9 weeks, village staff has lost 10 of its staff.” Those comments were made during public comment and were not converted to formal committee findings. - Revenue recovery: staff and committee members noted many routine records requests are low‑cost because requested material is already in board packets; this example was unusual in scope and personal content, which prompted attorney involvement. Outcome and next steps - Discussion only: committee members asked staff to consider training options and procedural changes to avoid repeating large attorney costs for redaction when requests are routine. - No formal ordinance, budget item or policy was adopted at the meeting. The committee asked staff to bring procedural options back to a future agenda if staff believes training or process changes would be feasible and legally safe.