Russellville Electric Board Manager Charles Canida invoiced the Franklin Free Press and Russellville City Councilman Darren Woodruff more than $95/hour for his time in 'researching' the REB's response to an Alabama Open Records Act request filed in December 2021.
The FFP served Canida and Sherry Smith, his Executive Assistant, with an Open Records Act request on December 22, 2021, wherein it requested the REB produce records reflecting Canida's annual compensation package, purchase of vehicles for use by Canida, board member compensation and records of overpayment to board members, certain employee files, expenses for the REB's annual Christmas Party at the Marriott Shoals and other documents, all of which are public record.
Before turning over the requested records to Woodruff and the FFP, Canida insisted on prepayment of an invoice that changed three times for production of the exact same records. When Woodruff calculated the rate Canida was charging for his time in the second invoice, the councilman was shocked to learn it was more than $95/hour.
“This is nothing but public extortion and an attempt to price most citizens out of seeing records they are entitled by law to review,” Woodruff said. “Any ratepayer should be able to inspect the financial records from any utility no matter how rich they are, how poor they are or what their skin color is. This is the right of the citizens and that right is protected by Alabama law.”
Although REB's policy is to respond and produce requested records within 30 days from the date of request, that did not happen in this case. The majority of records were not produced until March 1, 2022, and Canida required prepayment before they would be turned over to the FFP or Woodruff.
The FFP received three different invoices from the Russellville Electric Board for the same records request, starting with an invoice dated February 9, 2022, for $1,016.
That invoice had a $181 charge for documents and a $835 charge for 'Research Fees,' with no further explanation.
When FFP Publisher John Pilati requested further clarification on the 'Research Fee,' including a breakdown of which employee or employees conducted the research and the rate their hourly work was charged at, Canida had a second invoice prepared, this time for $1,064, for the exact same records.
This invoice, again dated February 9, 2022, was not presented to the FFP and Woodruff until March 1.
The second invoice included a document fee of $187.50, and 'Research' fee of $876.63, which was broken down into hours for 'Employee 1,' 'Employee 2,' and 'Employee 3.'
Employee 1, later identified as Canida himself, billed $476.78 for five hours of research, for an hourly rate of $95.35. Based on a 40-hour week, that would extrapolate to Canida earning an annual salary of $198,298.88.
Employee 2, later identified as Smith, showed 4.5 hours of time and a total of $199.21, for an hourly rate of $44.26.
The invoice showed Employee 3, identified as REB accountant Tiffany Holt, having worked 2.5 hours on research for a total of $200.64. This breaks down to an hourly rate of $80.25, which based on a 40-hour work week, would have Holt's annual salary at $166,932.48.
Holt's actual annual salary is $95,680, according to documents produced in response to the Open Records Act request.
Both Woodruff and the FFP requested further clarification of who 'Employees 1, 2 and 3' actually were. That's when, for the first time, Canida, Smith and Holt were identified as the three persons who spent a collective 12 hours preparing a response to the document request.
But there was a third different invoice to come, once again dated February 9, 2022. This time, Canida (Employee 1) had a total of $393.45 for five hours, for an hourly rate of $78.69. Based on a 40-hour work week, this would indicate Canida to have an annual salary of $163,675.20.
The third invoice had the same number of hours, but a different hourly rate, changed only after the requesting parties insisted that 'Employees 1,2 and 3' be identified by name.
Smith (Employee 2) showed 4.5 hours of research at a total of $115.88, for an hourly rate of $25.75, just over half of the hourly rate in the second invoice.
Holt (Employee 3) had 2.5 hours of research billed on the third invoice for a total of $117.30. This breaks down to $46.92 per hour, compared to her hourly rate of $80.25 in the second invoice.
The next invoice totaled $814.13, the third different total given to the requesting parties, and it was paid by Woodruff.
Section 36-25A-1 of the Alabama Code, commonly referred to as the Alabama Public Records Law, grants citizens the right to inspect and copy any public writing of a public agency, board, commission or any other governmental body which conducts the people's business.
The Public Records Law does not state a specific fee or limitation on fees, although the Alabama Attorney General's Office, according to www.muckrock.com, has historically stated, “If possible, a public agency should provide free copies of public records. However, if budgetary constraints prevent this, then a public agency may charge a nominal fee, if necessary, to cover its costs in providing copies of public records. One may inspect public records without paying a fee unless a substantial amount of an employee's time is required.”
Canida attempted to charge more than $1,060 for public records, much of which were simply photocopies of REB's 2020 and 2021 financial statements that required no research to locate, other than opening a file drawer.
While there are no specific fees outlined in Alabama's Open Records Law, any amount charged must not be excessive. Alabama courts have held some fees charged for public records to be excessive to the point that they prevent the average person or agency from requesting them due to an inability to pay.
According to www.muckrock.com, fees may be waived in cases where the requesting party is a governmental agency. Although Woodruff is a city councilman, there was no waiver of the fees charged by REB.
By comparison, the Franklin County Board of Education's Open Records Policy includes a fee of $30/hour for clerical time and 10 cents per page for any photocopies. The average hourly rate charged by REB was more than $73/hour, more than double that of another local governmental entity.
Last year, Sen. Arthur Orr (R-Decatur), introduced a bill that would set a specific response time agencies would have to respond to Open Records Act requests. The bill would also have set a reasonable cost schedule to provide requested documents. The bill died in the 2021 legislative session.
If a citizen, or entity, is presented with a cost for public records it considers excessive, the only remedy is to file a civil action in the court system, which adds additional cost to the requesting party. This makes it even more financially burdensome and can serve as a deterrent to citizens' ability to review records they are entitled to, Orr explained.
“These records are not an agency's. They are the people's,” Orr said during last year's legislative session.
Commenting on this story has been disabled.
