Mr. Arp and Others,

I am in receipt of your letter of June 5th concerning my request to view the legal bills submitted to the County by Kramer Rayson/Robert Bowman. Your explanation for delay and refusal to view the requested documents is ludicrous and no more than legal mumbo jumbo. The legal cases cited in your letter have no relevance what so ever to the public's right to view public records i.e. legal bills submitted to the County by Kramer Rayson/Robert Bowman. Mr. Bowman should know full well that "attorney work product" protection would only apply in a criminal situation and that "attorney client privilege" would never apply in this situation especially given that the client is the County tax payers.

Tennessee's Public Records Act provides that: All state, county and municipal records ... shall at all times, during business hours, be open for personal inspection by any citizen of Tennessee, and those in charge of such records shall not refuse such right of inspection to any citizen, unless otherwise provided by state law.
Tenn. Code Ann. 10-7-503(a).

In determining whether a record is a public record for purposes of this Act, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the proper test is "whether [the record] was made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency." Griffin v. City of Knoxville, 821 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tenn. 1991). The Supreme Court further held that courts must look to the totality of the circumstances in making this determination.

I believe legal bills are "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency."

Mr. Bowman should have access to LexisNexis, but if not below are a number of other OAG opinions and case law that should help to clear his confusion.

Opinion No. 06-104 2006 Tenn. AG LEXIS 113 June 23, 2006

THE KNOXVILLE NEWS-SENTINEL, Appellee, VS. THOMAS DEE HUSKEY
982 S.W.2d 359, *; 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 237, **

Opinion No. 85-152 1985 Tenn. AG LEXIS 147 May 6, 1985

DEAN ARNOLD d/b/a, THE CHATTANOOGA FAX and TENNESSEE-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, and MAYOR JON KINSEY, Respondents-Appellants.
19 S.W.3d 779, *; 1999 Tenn. App. LEXIS 765, **

There are a number of other cases relevant to this situation but I'm am sure Mr. Bowman can find these on his own if he tries. And then there is the CTAS opinion requested by the commission.

At some point in time, you will lose your ability to continue hold hostage the public records of the county and all the facts will become public once again. Until such time, I will play your game.

I am requesting to view the actual legal bills submitted to the county by the firm of Kramer Rayson from July 1.2006 to present. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Bowman redacts from his bills.

Van Shaver

BACK