Dear City Manager James Bennett, Mayor Alan Casavant, City Solicitor Keith Jacques, Council President John McCurry and City Clerk Carmen Morris,

Under the Maine Freedom of Access Act § 402 et seq., I am requesting information that should have been made publicly available under statute, about executive sessions entered by the Biddeford City Council.

I request to know:

1) which union the council negotiated a contract with in an executive session held on Dec. 15, as the statute cited as the basis for the session, 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(D), requires that, “The parties must be named before the body or agency may go into executive session;” and who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the session;

2) which party the council negotiated a contract with in an executive session held on Dec. 19, as the statute cited as the basis for the session, 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(D), requires that, “The parties must be named before the body or agency may go into executive session;” and who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the session;

3) whether an attorney was present, and if so, which attorney was present during an executive session on Dec. 19, for an “update on on-going litigation,” as the statute cited, 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(E), requires that the council must be in consultation with an attorney; and who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the session;

4) “the precise nature of the business of the executive session” entered into on Dec. 19 for consultation with an attorney, as is required to be indicated by statute 1 M.R.S.A. 405, as “update on on-going litigation” fails to suffice as “precise,” and a more descriptive indication could have been made, without jeopardizing the nature of the discussion, of whether the litigation discussed was litigation against the city or its employees, or litigation initiated by the city against another party or parties;

5) who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the Dec. 19 executive session held to discuss the evaluation of an employee;

6) whether the topics of “labor contract negotiations,” “update on on-going litigation” and “evaluation of an employee” discussed in the Dec. 19 executive session were intermingled throughout the whole session; or whether specific times were noted when the discussion of business relevant to a citation of statutory authority was concluded and the business relevant to a separate citation of statutory authority initiated, so as to ensure that matters other than the precise nature of business for each statutory authority were not considered during discussions authorized under separate statutory authority, and if so, the exact times when the council switched its discussion from one precise nature of business allowable under a certain statute to another;

7) who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the Feb. 2 executive session held to discuss hardship abatement;

8) “the precise nature of the business of the executive session” entered into on Feb. 2 as is required to be indicated by statute 1 M.R.S.A. 405, as “real estate” fails to suffice as “precise,” especially considering that the statute cited, 1 M.R.S.A 405(6)(C) offers at least five examples of a “precise nature” of business that could have been indicated without jeopardizing the nature of the discussion, including “condition,” “acquisition,” “use,” or “disposition” of property, or “economic development,” any of which could have been clarified as a more precise nature of the discussion than simply “real estate,” and without even naming said property;

9) who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the Feb. 2 executive session held to discuss “real estate;”

10) who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the Feb. 2 executive session held to discuss the evaluation of an employee;

11) whether contract negotiations or labor proposals were discussed in the Feb. 2 executive session held to discuss a “personnel issue” under the authority of statute 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(A), and if so, why was statute 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(D) not cited instead, and the party with whom contract negotiations or labor proposals were being considered not named, as required by the statute, that, “The parties must be named before the body or agency may go into executive session;”

12) who, other than the mayor and councilors, was present for the Feb. 2 executive session held to discuss a “personnel issue;”

13) “the precise nature of the business of the executive session” entered into on Feb. 2 as is required to be indicated by statute 1 M.R.S.A. 405, as “personnel issue” fails to suffice as “precise,” especially considering that the statute cited, 1 M.R.S.A. 405(6)(A) offers at least 13 examples of a “precise nature” of business that could have been indicated without jeopardizing the nature of the discussion, including “employment,” “appointment,” “assignment,” “duties,” “promotion,” “demotion,” “compensation,” “evaluation,” “disciplining,” “resignation,” or “dismissal” of officials, appointees or employees, or “investigation” or “hearing of complaints” against persons, any of which would have been a more “precise” descriptor of the discussion than simply “personnel issue,” and which could have been indicated without naming any individual;

14) whether the topics of “hardship abatement,” “real estate,” “employee evaluation,” and “personnel issue” discussed in the Feb. 2 executive session were intermingled throughout the whole session; or whether specific times were noted when the discussion of business relevant to a citation of statutory authority was concluded and the business relevant to a separate citation of statutory authority initiated, so as to ensure that matters other than the precise nature of business for each statutory authority were not considered during discussions authorized under separate statutory authorities, and if so, the exact times when the council switched its discussion from one precise nature of business allowable under a certain statute to another;

I also request a statement of explanation from an appropriate spokesperson for the city, as to why the council unanimously voted on repeated occasions to violate the requirements of the statute and enter executive sessions illegally, by not naming parties with whom labor contracts or proposals were being negotiated, and why the council continues to unanimously vote to enter executive sessions using motions that are vaguest in nature as can be, so as to fail to represent any minimal intention to meet the statutory requirement that, “A motion to go into executive session must indicate the precise nature of the business of the executive session.”

Thank you for considering my request,

Ben Meiklejohn,
Staff Writer,
Biddeford-Saco-Old Orchard Beach Courier

P. S. If portions of the requested information are not available to the public by requirement of statute or law, then please provide all portions of the request that are not required to be withheld, and reference statutory citations that allow portions of the requuest to be witheld.

If there are fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $20. I request a waiver of fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the abilities of the Biddeford City Council to conduct business openly and its ability to accurately convey to the public the nature of business that it conducts in executive session.

As a reporter for the Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier, this request is for news gathering purposes. The information is not being sought for commercial purposes.

If you intend deny this request, please respond within five business days as mandated by law. If you expect a significant delay in responding to this request, contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records.

Benjamin J. Meiklejohn, Staff Writer
Biddeford-Saco-OOB Courier
207-282-4337 ext. 213
news@inthecourier. com
457 Alfred St.
Biddeford ME 04005