Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records And Legal Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says former city attorney invoiced $750 before turning over records; council directs request
Summary
A resident told the Milton City Council that former city attorney Michael Andrade demanded a $750 invoice before producing records; council members asked staff to request emails, texts and phone logs and to evaluate billing and statutory obligations.
Pam Mitchell, a resident, told the Milton City Council at its March 17 work session that she filed an anonymous public-records request under the email miltonvoices@yahoo.com for records she said relate to former city attorney Michael Andrade, and that Andrade directed the city clerk to invoice her $750 before compiling the records.
Mitchell said the fee contradicted Andrade’s public statements that a public official has a “nondiscretionary ministerial duty to make public records available.” “Instead of fulfilling the records request, mister Andrade directed the city clerk to invoice me for $750 before he would start compiling the records,” Mitchell said.
Council members and legal staff discussed whether records held by a departing attorney are client records and which records constitute public records. City legal counsel Mr. Adams said the appropriate step is for the city to request the records it wants and then evaluate Andrade’s response. “I think the city should request what records they would like to see, and then see how he responds and evaluate his response,” Adams said.
Councilmembers pressed staff about scope. Councilman Powers asked whether phone logs, text messages and emails would be included; Adams and others confirmed a broad request could include those items. At one point council discussed whether statute requires custodians to provide records “at the lowest possible cost of the employee who could obtain those records,” meaning the city could ask an employee with lower pay to do the retrieval to reduce fees.
After discussion, council directed staff to make a citywide request for client records tied to city business held by the former city attorney — including emails, texts and phone logs — and to evaluate any fee estimate Andrade provides. The council did not set a vote on fees; members said the city would review any proposed charges against the public-records statute and the city’s contract terms.
The exchange occurred during the “persons to appear” portion of the work session and prompted follow-up clarifications from legal staff about what constitutes client versus attorney work product and what fees are permitted under the contract and statute.
Council members said they will await Andrade’s response and then evaluate next steps, including possible negotiation or legal options if statutory obligations are not met.
Ending: The council directed staff to request the identified records so the city can assess whether the fees claimed are consistent with state public-records law and the city’s contracts. No formal vote was recorded during the work session; the item was handled by consensus and follow-up by legal staff was requested.
