Driscoll, Sean v. Chatham, Town of (SPR 20150331)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords July 7, 2015 SPRlS/331 Ms. JulieS. Smith Town Clerk Town of Chatham 458 Main Street, P.O. Box 2060 Chatham, MA 02633 Dear Ms. Smith: I have received the petition of Sean F. Driscoll of the Cape Cod Times appealing the response of the Town of Chatham (Town) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Driscoll requested "[a] copy ofthe current dog registration or dog license database, including all information collected by the town from applicants." Mr. Driscoll also requested a waiver of fees. The Town assessed a fee of $10.00, Mr. Driscoll paid the fee and the Town provided the records; however, the Town redacted telephone numbers from the records, "claiming Exemption C-the Privacy Exemption." In response to a query from Mr. Driscoll the Town merely provided a response that included the language of the exemption, with emphasis on the portion of the exemption associated with the withholding of intimate details of a highly personal nature. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c). In this response the Town failed to notifY Mr. Driscoll of his administrative remedies. 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, § 10(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 Town 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. Further, the Town failed to inform Mr. Driscoll of his administrative remedies under the Public Records Law. The Public Records Access Regulations state that a custodian of records must notify a requester of his administrative remedies in the event the custodian denies access to requested records. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). The Town failed to inform Mr. Driscoll ofthis right. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. JulieS. Smith SPR15/331 Page Two July 7, 2015 Accordingly, whereas the Town has not overcome the presumption that the redacted portion ofthe responsive records are public, the Town is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days of this order, to provide Mr. Driscoll with the redacted portion of the records. If the Town maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (10) days provide to Mr. Driscoll a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to thi office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Sean F. Driscoll