Mayor presented resolution to council as TSH has numerous unanswered requests
The City of Marion has drafted a resolution that would require citizens to explain why they want to see government records, charge $25 an hour for staff time to retrieve them, and give city officials sweeping authority to deny requests they consider improper—provisions that conflict with Alabama law on multiple points.
Resolution No. 2026-03-02-001 has been distributed to the Marion City Council but has not been voted on. It was the subject of a closed-door executive session at the council’s March 2 meeting that ended with Councilman Stanley Kennie walking out of the back office and declaring in the council chambers: “The citizens have the right to view any files in this office. And I stand on my ground, I’m gone. I’m through with that.”
Councilwoman Ann Hereford LeCroy and Councilman Willie Jackson followed Kennie out of the session shortly after. Mayor Dexter Hinton then declared the meeting adjourned without a vote of the council.
The Times-Standard-Herald has obtained a copy of the two-page resolution and reviewed it against the Alabama Open Records Act, including Act 2024-278, the 2024 reform that strengthened the public’s right of access to government records.
The most significant provision is in Section 2, which requires anyone requesting records to “state the purpose or reason for the request sufficient to demonstrate a direct, legitimate interest when required.” It further states that city officials are not obligated to respond to requests they deem “speculative, harassing, scandalous, or improper.”
Alabama’s open records statutes contain no purpose requirement. Under §§ 36-12-40 and 36-12-41, any Alabama resident may inspect and copy public records. The law does not ask why.
The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this directly in Blankenship v. Hoover, holding that procedures for handling records requests must not be used to “dissuade or prevent any individual from acquiring access to public documents” or give officials “the power to hinder access or refuse disclosure based on perceived necessity or established office policy.”
A requirement that citizens justify their interest in government records, paired with city officials’ authority to reject requests they find “improper,” does both.
Section 3 of the resolution states that “Alabama law does not prescribe a specific time for response to public records requests.” That is not accurate. Act 2024-278, which took effect October 1, 2024, establishes a timeline under which a requester whose request goes unanswered for 30 days may demand a response within 10 business days. If that deadline also passes, the law creates a presumption that the request has been denied, giving the requester standing to seek a court order.
Section 4 gives each resident one free hour of staff retrieval time per calendar year. After that, the city would charge $25 an hour for research, retrieval, review, redaction, and supervision. Paper copies would cost $1 per page, and the city could require prepayment before starting work.
Governor Kay Ivey’s Executive Order 734, issued in 2023, caps the hourly rate state agencies may charge for records retrieval at $20. Marion’s proposed rate is 25 percent higher. Attorney General opinions have consistently held that records fees should be nominal and that legal review costs cannot be passed to requesters.
The one-hour annual allowance means a resident who files two records requests in a year—asking about a water bill and a zoning question, for example—would be charged from the first minute of staff time on the second request.
Catch-all exemption
Section 6 lists categories of records the city may withhold, including personnel files, pending criminal investigations, and financial account numbers. Some of those track with recognized exemptions.
But the section ends by also allowing the city to withhold anything whose disclosure would “otherwise be detrimental to the best interests of the public”—with the city as sole judge of what the public’s interests are.
The Alabama Supreme Court held in Chambers v. Birmingham News Co. that exemptions to the open records law “must be narrowly construed” in favor of public access. A provision that lets city hall withhold any record it considers inconvenient is the opposite of that standard.
But, many have wondered, what would the passage of such a resolution ultimately mean? A resolution is a statement of policy. It is not an ordinance, does not carry the force of law, and cannot override state statute. The rights established by the Alabama Open Records Act exist regardless of what any municipality resolves.
That does not make the resolution meaningless. A document posted at city hall and handed to citizens who come asking for records carries the weight of apparent authority. A resident who reads that they must explain why they want to see how their government spends money is unlikely to know the law says otherwise.
The resolution is being considered at a time when the city has multiple outstanding public records requests.
The Times-Standard-Herald filed requests with the city in December 2025 seeking records related to city operations. The city acknowledged the requests but has not produced any documents.
Under state law, no Alabama resident needs permission, a reason, or a resolution to inspect the records of their government.
