Moschella, Esq., William v. Saugus, Town of - Cable Television (SPR 20150239)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A Williams Supervisor ofR ecords May 13,2015 SPRlS/239 Ms. Joan M. Gayron Town of Saugus- Cable Television 298 Central Street, Suite 1 Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Ms. Gayron: I have received the petition of William Moschella appealing the response of Town of Saugus Cable Television Station (Station) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Moschella requested to inspect or obtain copies of records related to the Saugus Cable Television Station. In a response dated March 12,2015 the Station provided redacted records responsive to his request. The Station provided no explanation to support redacting any information from the records it provided. Further, the response failed to respond to the entire request. The basis of Mr. Moschella's appeal is that the Station failed to meet its burden under the Public Records Law in responding to his request. The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Public records and any non-exempt, segregable portions thereof, are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are not blanket in nature). The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § lO(c) (emphasis added). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). The response by the Station did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. To comply with the Public Records Law and its Regulations a records custodian must provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Joan M. Gayron SPR15/239 May 13,2015 Page Two I find the Station has failed to meet its burden of specificity in denying access to public records. Accordingly, the Station is hereby ordered to review Mr. Moschella's request and provide all responsive records, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. If the Station maintains that any portion ofthe responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days provide to Mr. Moschella a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each withheld record with along with a custodial index. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08. cc: Mr. William A. Moschella, Sr.