Government transparency is the foundation of a functioning democracy. As a citizen and elected council member, I have exercised my legal right under the Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40) to request access to financial records of the City of Margaret. Unfortunately, my legitimate requests have been met with obstruction, delays, and questionable legal interpretations intended to withhold public information.

This document outlines my efforts to obtain public records, the responses I received from the city attorney, and the legal basis for why these records should be made available. I invite the news media, legal authorities, and transparency advocates to review this case and hold the City of Margaret accountable for compliance with the law.

Information Requests

On January 16, 2025, I submitted six separate records requests to the City of Margaret to prevent them from dismissing my entire request if they objected to one part, as they have done in the past. These requests sought the following information:

All city credit card charges for the past 12 months.
All employee and council expense reports for the past 12 months.
A list of all current employee pay rates (as of today’s date).
All employees’ annual gross pay for the year 2024.
A check detail report for the past four years for all bank accounts.
All payments to and invoices from Freddie Parham or any of his businesses over the past four years.

These requests are well within the scope of Ala. Code § 36-12-40, which grants citizens the right to inspect public records, and the recently enacted Act 2024-278, which mandates timely responses from government entities.

Full Letter:

Matthew Tortorice
235 Horton Drive
Odenville, AL 35120
01/16/2025

City of Margaret
825 Woodland Circle
Odenville, AL 35120

Re: Public Records Request – City Credit Card Charges

Dear City of Margaret,

In accordance with the Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40), any recently enacted provisions under Ala. Code § 36-12-41, and any other pertinent laws, I hereby request access to inspect the following public records:

All city credit card charges for the last 12 months.
All employee and council expense reports for the last 12 months.
A list of all current employee pay rates (as of today’s date).

All employees’ annual gross pay for 2024.
A check detail report for the last 4 years for all bank accounts.
All payments to and Invoices from Freddie Parham or any of his businesses over the last four (4) years.

I specifically wish to inspect these records rather than obtain copies, so I do not anticipate any per-page fees. Please notify me of the approximate timeframe—as established by recent state law or your office’s internal procedures—needed to locate, prepare, or redact (if necessary) these records. Once that timeframe is determined, I would like to arrange an in-person review.

If you believe any portion of these records is exempt from disclosure, please provide a written explanation citing the specific exemption(s) and release any remaining non-exempt portions.

Thank you for your timely attention to this matter. I look forward to your response within the timeframe required by Alabama law.

Sincerely,

Matthew Tortorice
205-352-9559
mtortorice@gmail.com

Information Request Initial Response

On January 24, 2025, I received a response from the city attorney that misrepresented the scope of public records laws, arguing that most of the requested financial records are confidential and not available for public review.

Key Issues with the City’s Response:

The city failed to cite any statutory exemption that justifies withholding the requested records.
The city attorney falsely implied that I could not share the records if received—this has no legal basis. Once public records are disclosed, they belong to the public and may be freely disseminated.

This response was not only misleading but an attempt to obstruct public access to financial records that should legally be available.

1^st Rebuttal by Me

On January 24, 2025, I submitted a formal written rebuttal to the City of Margaret, citing specific legal precedents and statutory requirements that mandate disclosure of public financial records.

Key Arguments in My Rebuttal:

Financial Records Are Public: Payroll, expenditures, and vendor payments must be disclosed under Ala. Code § 36-12-40.

Employee Salaries Are Not Confidential: Alabama courts have ruled that individual pay rates and gross salaries must be made available.

Credit Card and Expense Reports Are Subject to Disclosure: The use of public funds is a matter of public record.

The City Must Provide a Legal Basis for Denial: The law requires that any refusal be backed by a specific statutory exemption, which the city attorney failed to provide.

New Alabama Law Sets Clear Deadlines: Act 2024-278 establishes strict response timeframes that the city must follow.

Additionally, I amended my request to include billing statements, invoices, and payment records for the city attorney for the past six months to ensure transparency regarding legal expenditures.

Full Email:

I have attached my formal response to the City’s rebuttal regarding my previous public records requests. Additionally, I would like to amend my initial request to include the following records:

Billing statements, invoices, and payment records for the City Attorney for the past six (6) months.

Please confirm receipt of this request and provide an estimated timeframe for when these records will be available for inspection, in accordance with the Alabama Open Records Act.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Matthew Tortorice

Attached Letter of Rebuttal:

Matthew Tortorice 235 Horton Drive Odenville, AL 35120

January 24, 2025

City of Margaret 825 Woodland Circle Odenville, AL 35120

Re: Response to Denial of Public Records Request

City of Margaret, I am writing in response to your letter dated January 21, 2025, regarding my public records request submitted on January 16, 2025, pursuant to the Alabama Open Records Act and any applicable state laws, including the recent amendments enacted under Act 2024-278, effective October 1, 2024. Your response asserts limitations on my access to specific financial records, including employee pay rates, expense reports, and city credit card usage. However, I respectfully contest your interpretation of the Act and request that the City of Margaret comply with the statutory requirements for transparency.

1. Right to Inspect Financial Records The Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40) ensures broad public access to financial records of public entities, including expenditures, payroll, and vendor payments. Alabama courts have consistently upheld the public’s right to review such records. The recent amendments under Act 2024-278 further clarify that access must be granted within a reasonable timeframe, which your office must comply with. Your response does not cite any statutory exemption that justifies withholding these records from public inspection. 2. Employee Pay Rates and Gross Salaries Are Public Information Under Ala. Code and recent legal precedents, employee salaries and pay rates are considered public records, as they reflect the expenditure of public funds. The claim that only departmental salary aggregates can be provided is not supported by the law. Citing from the ALM Public Records reading, “the court found that the 1099 forms did not contain any personal information and should be provided. The court stated that, the rate of pay, even the gross pay of individual employees, must be made available upon request.”

3. Expense Reports and Credit Card Charges Are Subject to Disclosure

City expense reports and credit card transactions using public funds fall under the definition of public records. City financial transactions involving public funds as subject to public inspection. If any redactions are necessary, your office must provide a written justification citing the exact statutory exemption. 4. Requirement to Provide Written Explanation of Exemptions Under Ala. Code, if the City of Margaret believes any portion of my request is exempt from disclosure, it is legally required to provide a written explanation citing the specific statutory exemptions. Your response does not cite any legal authority supporting the denial of full access to the records requested. The absence of statutory citations suggests that the denial is not legally justified.

In light of the above, I formally request that the City of Margaret fulfill my public records request in its entirety or provide a legally sufficient written explanation for any exemptions. Failure to comply with the Alabama Open Records Act and its recent amendments may necessitate legal action to enforce my rights under state law.

I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request a response within the fourteen (14) days as provided in your letter. Please confirm when the records will be made available for my inspection.

Sincerely,

Matthew Tortorice

2nd Response by City

Following my rebuttal, I received a second response from the city attorney on Feb 2nd, 2025. This letter reiterated the same arguments without providing any valid legal justification.

Additionally, the city attorney falsely claimed that no timeframe exists for responding to records requests. This contradicts Act 2024-278, which mandates specific response deadlines, including:

For Standard Requests (Less than 8 hours of work to process):

10 business days to acknowledge receipt.

15 business days to provide a substantive response.

Extensions allowed in 15-business-day increments if needed.

For Time-Intensive Requests (More than 8 hours of work to process):

10 business days to acknowledge receipt.

45 business days to provide a substantive response.

Extensions allowed in 45-business-day increments if needed.

Failure to comply within these timeframes creates a presumption of denial, meaning legal action can be pursued.

My 2^nd rebuttal to the city letter:

Response to City of Margaret’s Assertions Regarding Public Records Requests
Matthew Tortorice
February 7th, 2025

City of Margaret
825 Woodland Circle
Odenville, AL 35120

Re: Clarification and Justification of Public Records Request

To Whom It May Concern,

I am responding to the City of Margaret’s most recent communication regarding my public records requests submitted on January 16, 2025. The response I received contained several misleading assertions and attempts to mischaracterize my request. I am providing the following clarifications and justifications to ensure an accurate understanding of my requests and the legal obligations under the Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40) and Act 2024-278.

Clarification of Mischaracterizations

I Did Not Request 1099 Forms.
- At no point in my request did I ask for 1099 tax forms. My request concerns publicly available financial records related to city expenditures, salaries, and payments to vendors. The reference to 1099s appears to be a distraction from the actual request.
There Is a Legal Obligation to Respond in a Timely Manner.
- The city attorney’s claim that no response timeframe exists is incorrect. Act 2024-278 explicitly mandates response deadlines, including a requirement to acknowledge a request within 10 business days and respond substantively within 15 business days for standard requests. Non-compliance with these deadlines constitutes a presumptive denial.
Public Employees’ Pay Rates Are Not Confidential.
- Alabama courts have consistently ruled that government salaries and pay rates are public information. My request seeks only this publicly available data and does not infringe on any personal privacy rights.
City Credit Card Charges and Expense Reports Are Public Records.
- Any expenditure of public funds is subject to public review. The city’s use of credit cards and expense reimbursements must be transparent to ensure accountability.

Justifications for Each Request

City Credit Card Charges for the Past 12 Months
- Justification: Transparency in how public funds are spent is a fundamental government accountability measure. Reviewing these charges ensures funds are used appropriately and in compliance.
All Employee and Council Expense Reports for the Past 12 Months
- Justification: Expense reimbursements must be subject to public oversight to confirm they are legitimate and necessary for city operations. Public review deters waste, fraud, and abuse.
List of All Current Employee Pay Rates
- Justification: Government salary structures are public information under Alabama law. This request ensures fair and equitable pay practices are being followed.
All Employees’ Annual Gross Pay for 2024
- Justification: Public employees’ gross pay is a matter of public record, as it reflects taxpayer-funded compensation. Ensuring transparency helps maintain public trust in payroll expenditures.
Check Detail Report for All Bank Accounts for the Past Four Years
- Justification: A full check register provides a detailed view of city spending, ensuring funds are allocated properly and no unauthorized expenditures occur.
All Payments to and Invoices from Freddie Parham or Any of His Businesses for the Past Four Years
- Justification: This request ensures transparency in vendor payments and verifies that public funds are used appropriately in city contracts or agreements and no ethical violations have occurred.
All Payments to, Billings and Invoices from Erskine Funderburg for the last six months.
- Justification: This request ensures transparency in vendor payments and verifies that public funds are used appropriately in city contracts or agreements and no ethical violations have occurred.

Conclusion

My requests are reasonable, justified, and fully compliant with Alabama law. I expect the City of Margaret to comply with its legal obligations and provide the requested records within the timeframe mandated by Act 2024-278. If any portion of my request is denied, I request a written explanation citing the specific statutory exemption that justifies the withholding of public records.

I look forward to your response and the opportunity to inspect these records in accordance with the law.

Sincerely,
Matthew Tortorice

Cities Email Response on 2/10/2025

Mr. Tortorice;

This is your second change to your original group of requests. To avoid misunderstandings from 3 separate request, I believe the city clerk possess a form that is required to be completed in order to properly make a records request from the city. That form has an area for you to specifically state your reasons for each category of the request. The form will need to be completed to address your request and the basis of the request. Your last email seems to request all bills and payments from the last 6 months which will be a very large task from my understanding. I have no idea if the bills are scanned or the checks upon which payment is made. Account numbers will have to be deleted from each and every item which will entail quite a large amount of time to sort and delete, and that cost you will be required to pay. I would strongly encourage you to narrow your last scope requested if at all possible to avoid what would seem to be a high retrieval cost regardless of the format provided.

Erskine R Funderburg

My 3^rd rebuttal to the City

Subject: Response to City’s Continued Obstruction of Public Records Request

Dear Mr. Funderburg,

Your recent response misrepresents the nature of my public records request and appears to be yet another attempt to obstruct transparency through procedural delays rather than complying with the City’s legal obligations.

1. No Changes—Only a Clarification of the City’s Contradiction

Your claim that this is my “second change” to my request is demonstrably false. I have not changed my original requests—I have simply responded to legally deficient objections and added one new request in response to the City’s delay tactics.

At the time of my initial submission, I explicitly requested the City’s official information request form. The City’s response was that they did not have such a form.
Now, you claim that a form is required, contradicting the cities own prior response and imposing a retroactive procedural barrier. This is not a change in my request—it is the City altering its stance to manufacture an obstacle.
Furthermore, all my original requests contained the necessary information for processing, meaning that I already complied with any reasonable documentation requirements, whether a form existed or not.

2. Deliberate Mischaracterization of the Scope of Requests

Your claim that my request is overly broad is both misleading and baseless. The records I have requested—credit card charges, employee pay data, check detail reports, and specific vendor payments—are standard financial documents that any functioning municipality should have readily available.

Your assertion that fulfilling my request “would require a large amount of time to sort and delete account numbers” is disingenuous at best.
Municipal financial records must be maintained in an organized and accessible manner. If the City’s records are so disorganized that fulfilling a routine records request is an undue burden, that raises serious concerns about the City’s financial oversight and record-keeping practices.

3. Excessive Cost as a Delaying Tactic

Your reference to high retrieval costs is yet another transparent attempt to deter access. Under Alabama law, a government entity cannot impose unreasonable costs to deter or obstruct a legitimate records request.

If any redactions are required, I expect a detailed, itemized breakdown of the estimated costs based on actual workload, not vague, speculative figures designed to discourage compliance.
The burden is on the City to prove that any fees are both reasonable and necessary, which you have failed to do.

4. The City’s Clear Violation of the Alabama Open Records Act

The City’s refusal to comply violates Act 2024-278 and other statutory obligations:

The City is legally required to respond within the mandated timeframe, which you have repeatedly ignored.
The City must provide a statutory basis for any denial, yet you have failed to cite any legal justification for withholding records.
Public financial records are not confidential—Alabama courts have consistently ruled that expenditures of public funds, including employee salaries, must be made available for public scrutiny.

5. Formal Demand for Compliance & Notice of Legal Action

Your continued obstruction and mischaracterization of my request will not go unchallenged. This is my final request for compliance:

I expect the City to begin processing my request in good faith.
Further delays, shifting excuses, or procedural gamesmanship will all be seen as violations of the Open Records Act .
If the City continues to obstruct compliance, I will be left with no choice but to file a formal legal action to enforce my statutory rights and seek judicial intervention.

This matter has already gone beyond acceptable administrative delays, and further attempts to frustrate my right to access public records will be considered deliberate obstruction.

Sincerely,
Matthew Tortorice

4^th Response: Follow Up 02/25/2025

City of Margaret,

It has now been two weeks since I sent my third rebuttal regarding the City’s continued delays in fulfilling my public records requests originally submitted on January 16, 2025. To date, I have received no response, nor have I been provided with any of the requested documents.

The Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40), along with Act 2024-278, imposes clear deadlines for government entities to provide public records. The City’s ongoing failure to comply constitutes a direct violation of state law.

This situation has already dragged on far beyond reasonable legal deadlines, and I will no longer tolerate further obstruction. I have been left with no choice but to escalate this matter.

Sincerely,

Matthew Tortorice

Erskine’s Reply: 2/25/2025

Mr. Tortorice;

The last responsive email from myself that was attached to this email chain clearly ask you to perform several task to comply with a records request under the laws you state. Complete a form that the city clerk has created which allows you to state the purpose of each of your request. It is my understanding you have done nothing concerning either relating to the form completion or stating the purposes of your request. I do believe the clerk and some employees have been pulling some documents related to your original request but you can check with the mayor concerning these documents. Last I have repeatedly asked that you inform me of any required deadlines other than you own personal stated one’s. I am unaware of any stated guidelines relating to a timeline for production of documents requested under the laws you state. If you know of any such requirements please respond with the same to myself, the mayor and the city clerk. It is however my understanding that any time line would not begin to run UNTIL you complete the necessary form created by the clerk.

I have attempted to timely respond to your request as a professional courtesy and attempting to carry on the city’s business. I really do not understand how you can not communicate with the mayor or the city clerk on basic issues relating to city business and your multiple, changing request. I have no idea what is meant by your statement of “escalating “ the matter but would ask that you at least attempt a civil discussion with the mayor and /or the city clerk to get copies of what you desire. Because you are a sitting elected councilman you have certain rights and privileges of reviewing city finances that others do not possess. I attempted to make this clear in my original response. If your numerous request are being made as a citizen alone and not as a councilman then you would have to comply with the same procedures as other citizens within the community.

Sincerely,

Erskine R Funderburg

5^th Reply: Rebuttal

This included two attachements, the cease and desist letter from the city clerk and the ALM Public Records document.

Dear Mr. Funderburg,

Your latest response is yet another deliberate misrepresentation of facts and an attempt to obstruct compliance with the Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40) and Act 2024-278. I will address each of your points directly:

1. The City Clerk’s Cease and Desist Order Prevents Me from Communicating with the City

You claim that I should be working with the Mayor and the City Clerk to retrieve my records. However, as you are well aware, the City Clerk issued a cease and desist order threatening me with harassment charges if I ask her any questions. I attached it for your reference.

It is disingenuous to claim that I should communicate with a city official who has explicitly threatened legal action against me for doing exactly that.
If the City Clerk is now willing to withdraw that baseless threat and engage in good-faith communication, I am open to that discussion.

2. The City Is Fabricating New Requirements to Delay Compliance

You state that I must complete a form from the City Clerk before the request is processed. However:

When I submitted my original requests, I specifically asked for the City’s official request form and was told that no such form existed or that they did not have any to give me, and you have not provided said form in any of this chain of communication.
Now, after weeks of delay, you suddenly claim that a form is required before the timeline even begins to run.
This is an unlawful, after-the-fact procedural barrier intended solely to obstruct compliance. You cannot invent new procedural hurdles to avoid following the law.

3. You Continue to Ignore the Legal Deadline for Compliance

Your claim that you are unaware of any timeline requirement for public records requests is either a willful misrepresentation or an admission of ignorance regarding Act 2024-278, which clearly establishes response deadlines. I have also attached the ALM additional reading on Public Records which I have quoted previously.

Standard Requests (Less than 8 hours of work to process):
- 10 business days to acknowledge receipt.
- 15 business days to provide a substantive response.
- Failure to comply within this timeframe constitutes a presumptive denial.
Time-Intensive Requests (More than 8 hours of work to process):
- 10 business days to acknowledge receipt.
- 45 business days to provide a substantive response.
- Extensions are only allowed in 45-day increments with justification.

You have repeatedly ignored these legal requirements and refused to provide any timeline for compliance. Your refusal to acknowledge these laws does not exempt the City from following them.

4. I Have Not Changed My Requests

You repeatedly claim that I have “changed” my requests, which is objectively false.

I have been completely clear and consistent in what I have requested from the beginning.
The only modification was a new request that is a direct response to the City’s obstruction, procedural delays, and bad-faith arguments.

5. The City’s Own Actions Have Forced Me to Escalate This Matter

You ask what I mean by “escalating” the matter. Since the City has blatantly refused to comply with state law, I will now proceed with the following actions:

Filing a formal complaint with the Alabama Attorney General’s Office against the City of Margaret for noncompliance.
Engaging media and transparency organizations to expose the City’s continued refusal to comply with open records laws.

Your feigned confusion about what “escalation” means is another weak attempt to distract from the fact that the City has outright refused to comply with the law.

6. My Rights as a Councilman vs. My Rights as a Citizen

You also attempt to draw an artificial distinction between my requests as a citizen and my rights as an elected official.

The Alabama Open Records Act applies to all citizens, regardless of whether they hold office.
If you are suggesting that I am not entitled to public records simply because I am a citizen, then you are directly violating state law.

The City’s delays, shifting excuses, and outright falsehoods are a blatant abuse of power.

My requests have not changed and I have been in communication with all parties although you are the only one responding. So I ask based on your statements that:

The City process my requests in compliance with Act 2024-278.
The City cease fabricating new procedural barriers to avoid compliance.
The City Clerk either rescind the cease and desist order or clarify in writing that I am free to communicate with her regarding my records requests.

I have been more than patient and this is not my first request to meet such pushback and denials, but with the new ACT 2024-278 that went into effect in October I will be pursuing all avenues of relief.

Sincerely,
Matthew Tortorice

Erskine’s 2^nd Reply: 02/2/2025

The code to which you cite expressly requires you to complete any necessary form and pay estimated costs and expenses before any time periods begin to run. I would again request that you comply, complete the form the clerk has and then pay the estimated costs. By copy of this letter I am asking that the city clerk please provide you with 7 copies of the form as my last count you are attempting 7 separate request. I am unaware of any cease and desist order to which you refer. The clerk has a job to perform and as best I can tell she has done a good job performing her duties. If you prefer not to speak directly to the city clerk, the US mail service is an excellent manner of communication.

Again, I have tried to communicate with you each time you have reached out to me. I do not appreciate your insinuations of me trying to misrepresent something to you or anyone else. I am just a lawyer doing the best I can with a councilman who makes conducting city business very difficult all while you have 2 pending lawsuits against the city. Just as the redistricting within the city timely occurred, the responses to these request will eventually occur as well. Jockeying for position to abuse an opposing party rather than seeking common ground will always prevent resolution and only create more strife and distrust. I do my best to counsel all involved and each person can accept and abide that counsel or do as they please. My patience is running thin with everyone that does not want to perform their job for the citizens of Maragaret who deserve way better than they are receiving. Council’s set policy and laws, mayors run the day to day, and department heads carry out the functions of the city. If only everyone could exhibit a little trust in others, the city’s needs would be addressed quicker.

6^th Reply: Rebuttal

Dear Mr. Funderburg,

Your latest response continues to rely on altered facts, procedural obstructions, and legal misrepresentations. It is evident that someone is not performing their due diligence in handling these requests. Below, I will directly refute each of your claims and restate my lawful stance.

1. The City Originally Denied the Existence of a Records Request Form – You Cannot Move the Goalpost

Your claim that I must now complete a form before the timeline begins to run is an after-the-fact procedural barrier intended solely to delay compliance.

At the time of my original submission, I explicitly asked for the City’s official records request form and was told there was none.
If the City had a form at that time, it was legally required to provide it then—not weeks later after statutory deadlines have already passed.
The City does not get to retroactively impose new procedural requirements to restart the legal timeline. That is a blatant violation of Alabama’s Open Records Act and Act 2024-278.

This delay tactic is unacceptable and has zero basis in law.

2. The City is Legally Required to Provide Prompt Access for In-Person Review

I specifically requested an in-person review of the documents, which is a fundamental right under Alabama’s Open Records Act. Your response fails to cite any legal basis for denying this.

An in-person review does not require scanning, copying, or redaction beyond what is legally necessary.
The City cannot impose fees for physical copies when I have not requested them.
If redactions are necessary, the City must provide a clear itemized breakdown justifying them, not vague references to “significant resources.”

The City should provide a date and time for me to inspect the records. Any continued delay is a willful violation of the law.

3. The City is Not Above the Law – Compliance Deadlines Exist

Act 2024-278 clearly establishes response deadlines:

Acknowledgment within 10 business days
Substantive response within 15 business days for standard requests
A clear timeline and justification for an extension if additional time is required

The City has failed to meet these obligations. Simply stating that it will take “significant time” does not meet the legal requirement to provide a response and a timeline.

This constitutes a presumptive denial under Act 2024-278 and leaves the City legally exposed to enforcement action.

4. The City Clerk Has Prevented Me from Communicating – Your Instructions Are Contradictory

Once again, you instruct me to communicate with the City Clerk, yet you conveniently ignore the fact that she issued a cease and desist order threatening me with harassment charges if I asked her any questions.

This makes it legally impossible for me to follow the process you claim I should use.
If the City now insists that I communicate with the Clerk, then the Clerk must first withdraw her baseless threat in writing.
If not, the City should designate an alternate official who will process my request without threats of legal retaliation.

I have attached the certified cease and desist letter again for your reference, as you seem to have ignored it in my previous email. See the certified letter from the city clerk attachment.

I have been patient and reasonable in attempting to resolve this matter. I am no longer tolerating these bad-faith delays. If the City truly has nothing to hide, then it should comply with the law.

Sincerely,

Matthew Tortorice

City Clerk Reply: 02/26/2025

Good Morning,

I hope all is well. I have attached the 7 copies of the public records request application, and I estimate that the cost will be $123.92.

Thanks,

Teja McIntyre, mcis mMC/magistrate

City of Margaret

7^th Reply: Compliance against common sense

I have attached the completed Public Records Request forms for your processing. As previously stated, my request is to review these records in person, not to have copies made.

In response to your $123.92 estimate, I must remind you that Alabama Open Records Act (Ala. Code § 36-12-40) and Act 2024-278 require a detailed, itemized bill, not a general estimate. Therefore, I request:

A full breakdown of costs per individual request so that I may evaluate the legitimacy of each charge.
Clarification on why a fee is being imposed for an in-person review, as I have not requested copies. If the fee is related to retrieval time, please specify the exact hours estimated and the applicable rate.

Additionally, I am submitting these requests with full knowledge that:

There is no publicly posted policy requiring these forms.
When I originally requested public records in person, I specifically asked whether the City had request forms, and I was told there were none.
This newly imposed requirement appears to be a retroactive procedural barrier, which the City is now using to delay and complicate compliance with public records laws.

I expect a formal, itemized response breaking down the exact costs per request and an explanation of how these fees comply with Alabama law. If the City is imposing retrieval fees, I require documentation demonstrating how the estimated amount was calculated.

In accordance with Act 2024-278, I should have had these documents weeks ago.

Sincerely,
Matthew Tortorice

Margaret Information Request Form