The South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority has yet to produce invoices for which the Post-Tribune asked for in an August Access to Public Records request, prompting a complaint to Indiana’s Public Access Counselor Luke Britt. The complaint alleges that the SSCVA is failing to follow state law by not fulfilling the request. The Post-Tribune requested on August 19 via email “all detailed legal invoices” attached to the ongoing lawsuit between the SSCVA and its former president and CEO Speros Batistatos after the SSCVA in July appropriated $99,150 to go toward continuing legal fees in the case. Attorneys with Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg are representing the SSCVA as an entity, while Hammond-based attorney David Westland is representing SSCVA Chairman Andy Qunell; board members Matt Maloney, Brent Brashier and Matt Schuffert; and former board member Tom Dabertin as individuals. SSCVA Attorney Scott McClure acknowledged the Post-Tribune’s request August 20 — within Public Access guidelines for electronic requests — and said he should have a response by August 30. In a separate email later that day, however, he said that because the invoices contain information that doesn’t fall under what the Indiana Public Access law considers public record, it would need more time to redact, or black out, the sensitive information and provided a Public Access Counselor ruling from 2006 to explain his decision. Under state law, written work an attorney performs for a public agency could be exempted, though it’s unclear why any of the SSCVA attorneys would include language such as strategy in an invoice. McClure didn’t give a specific time as to when that would be, but did say he would “update (the Post-Tribune) if August 30, 2024 isn’t sufficient.” When the Post-Tribune didn’t hear anything from the SSCVA by August 30, it reached out to McClure on September 3, providing more recent opinions regarding legal invoices. Specifically, Britt has “consistently held that any redactions to legal invoices should only include attorney-client privileged material and those redactions should be narrowly tailored to protect just that material.” “As Britt opined in (a 2018 opinion concerning Hamilton Southeastern suspending a teacher without pay): ‘So long as the description of services on the invoices did not include advice, opinions, recommendations, legal analysis or strategy and the like — based upon the prior decisions of the judiciary — it would likely not be protected by the attorney-client privilege,'” the Post-Tribune wrote. The paper also referenced Britt’s March opinion regarding redacted invoices in Attorney General Todd Rokita’s disciplinary hearing, which said  “that not everything an attorney documents in the scope of representation is de facto confidential even if it meets the definition of communication.” “Invoices are not inherently communicated for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or aid; they are communicated for the purpose of demanding payment,” Britt wrote, adding that descriptions on an invoice, such as “Review and revise draft of Agreement,” “Attend meeting,” “draft email to Board,” Telephone call” and the like would “provide assurances that work was being performed in a tangible way.” Neither McClure nor the SSCVA responded to that email, so the Post-Tribune on September 19 reached out to McClure once again to check on the status of the invoices. McClure replied five days later, on September 24, that he anticipated having the bills gone through and available by Monday September 30th, 2024. The Post-Tribune neither received the invoices nor a revised timeline on September 30, so the paper contacted McClure again on October 7 asking him whether the SSCVA is going to fulfill the request as required by state law. He has yet to respond. Batistatos sued the SSCVA in August 2022 — a month after it fired him — alleging it violated the law in the handling of his contract renegotiations due to his age — he was 58 at the time — as well as misspent federal Payroll Protection Plan funds in violation of the CARES Act, a claim the board disputes. Notices of intent to sue were also sent to McDermott and attorney Kevin Smith for $2.5 million alleging defamation for their actions around the time Batistatos was relieved of his duties by the board. The SSCVA then filed a counterclaim June 20 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, accusing Batistatos of selling back unused vacation time as deferred compensation to the tune of $400,000. He did this, the claim alleges, by “Inappropriately report(ing) his time not working for the SSCVA as Floating Holidays or personal days, rather than vacation days.” On Sept. 10, United States District Court Northern District of Indiana Magistrate John E. Martin filed an order that requires both parties to have all fact discovery completed by June 30, 2025, and all expert discovery by September 30, 2025, according to court documents. Summary judgment deadlines won’t apply, court documents said, and the parties will also need to complete mediation by September 30, 2025. Michelle L. Quinn is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.