Opinion ID: 2310691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Freedom of Access Act.

Text: [¶ 16] We next address Yusem's allegation that the Commissioners' decision violates the Freedom of Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1) (1989). A party alleging a violation of the Freedom of Access Act bears the burden of presenting probative evidence before the Superior Court sufficient to support a finding that the Act was violated. Chase, 1998 ME 260, ¶ 9, 721 A.2d at 639. [¶ 17] Section 407 requires the agency to make a written record of each decision and to articulate the reasons for the decision. 1 M.R.S.A. § 407(1). [13] The Commissioners were required to set out their findings with a level of specificity that is `sufficient to appraise [sic] the applicant and any interested member of the public of the basis for the decision.' Christian Fellowship and Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, ¶ 14, 769 A.2d 834, 838 (citation omitted). [14] [¶ 18] Yusem's failure of proof left the Commissioners with little to say. Although brief, we conclude that the Commissioners' findings are sufficient for our review and sufficient to apprise Yusem and the public of the reasons for their conclusion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.