Request for Railroad Township Documents Leads to Response from Public Access Counselor

Posted on August 31, 2017
Author Michael Gallenberger, WKVI

Indiana’s public access counselor has been asked to weigh in on a dispute over public documents in Railroad Township. According to an advisory opinion issued by Public Access Counselor Luke H. Britt, Megan Korous filed a complaint with his office back in June, alleging that Township Trustee Mandy Thomason violated the Access to Public Records Act.

The main concern appears to stem from an executive session that took place on April 11. In order for an executive session to legally take place, Britt says notice must be posted at the meeting site at least 48 hours before the meeting begins. That notice must include the date, time, and location of the meeting, as well as a reference to the Indiana Code allowing the discussion to take place in executive session, rather than a public meeting.

After an executive session takes place, an official record should be created, listing the date, time, location, and the names of the members who were there. It must also refer to the Indiana Code that allowed the meeting to take place, along with a certified statement that no other topics were discussed.

Korous reportedly asked Thomason for a copy of those documents back in May, only to be told the request was not specific enough. Meanwhile, Thomason told the public access counselor that she did respond to the request. But Britt said she appeared to have only provided a screen shot of a Facebook post, rather than the official government documents.

In his analysis, Britt found that the request for the executive session documents seemed to be relatively straightforward, and said the documents should be provided as requested. While responding to the complaint, Thomason also asked the public access counselor to comment on a number of other requests for documents reportedly made by Korous. Korous appears to have asked for documentation from all of the township’s income and expenditures, as well as the amount of money paid in legal fees since 2016.

Britt found those requests to be overly broad, and noted that “no single constituent is the independent auditor of this information.” However, he stopped short of agreeing with Thomason’s assertions that the requests are “frivolous,” “abusive,” or “vexatious.”