ACTION COMMITTEE FOR TRANSIT, INC. v. TOWN OF CHEVY CHASE
Court of Special Appeals, Kehoe, Sept. 1, 2016,
MPIA – Denial of fee waiver based on ACT’s prior criticism of the town was an improper “imposition of financial burden[] based upon the content of their speech.”

MPIA – Standard for denial of waiver is “arbitrary or capricious”

GP 4-206 does not require a particular response to a waiver request.

However, on appeal to circuit court the court must have enough information to determine whether a custodian’s decision was arbitrary or capricious.

The CoSA found that Chevy Chase’s reasoning was “arbitrary” or “capricious,” though that label is a bit misleading given the directed animus of the town toward ACT:

The Town also did not agree that ACT or Ross’s fee waiver requests were made in the ‘public interest,’ or even that the documents requested were sought for a public purpose. Rather, the history of attacks on the Town by ACT/its members, and previous requests made by ACT and its Officers demonstrated that Plaintiffs sought the fee waiver for their own personal interests in retaliating against the Town for its opposition to the proposed Purple Line project.
ACT had posted false accusations against the Town on ACT’s website and had repeatedly attacked the Town because of the Town’s opposition to the proposed Purple Line project, accusing the Town of acting illegally. The Town, like any private citizen, is entitled to take a position on the public issue. ACT and its members engaged in a smear campaign and utilized the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board and, now this Court,to retaliate against the Town for its position on the proposed Purple Line project. Thus, the Town rightfully disbelieved ACT and Ross’s claims that the request for the fee waiver was in the ‘public interest.’ If anything, ACT and Ross appeared to desire the documents without paying the fee for the ‘commercial’ or proprietary purpose of attacking the Town for its opposition to a project supported by ACT. Thus,the Plaintiffs’ fee waiver requests were carefully considered and all factors militated against a finding by the Town that a fee waiver was in the ‘public interest’ or was warranted

Not sure which attorney decided to draft that “well reasoned” letter or highlight the fact that “the Open Meetings Compliance Board did in fact conclude that the Town had violated public notice provisions of the Open Meetings Act.”