It is essential that the Board be accountable to those for whom it works. Because Defendant's authority is constitutional in origin, it does not follow that Defendant is immune from accountability. Defendant next argues that Plaintiff's OMA claims are timebarred. The OMA provides for commencement of an action 180 days after the date of the violation giving rise to the cause of action. Plaintiff's request for documents, according to Defendant, is a FOIA matter.
Defendant claims that the privacy and advisory exemptions are applicable.
As stated earlier in this Opinion this Court believes that this Plaintiff is as entitled as any person to obtain the documents. Furthermore, this argument does not work given the fact that the documents have been released already. Defendant cannot justify exempting things already released. While the purpose of the request by the media or Plaintiff is irrelevant, State Employees Association, supra, the fact that the documents already have been released operates to destroy Defendant's argument. Logic, as well as the FOIA itself, cannot permit that release to occur for only some individuals.