Driscoll, Sean v. Yarmouth, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20150436)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords July 27, 2015 SPRlS/436 Mr. Phillip B. Gaudet Town Clerk Town of Yarmouth 1146 Route 28 South Yarmouth, MA 02664 Dear Mr. Gaudet: I have received the petition of Sean F. Driscoll of the Cape Cod Times appealing the response ofthe Town of Yarmouth (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 of the 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 provided responsive records with telephone numbers redacted. When Mr. Driscoll inquired as to what exemption to the Public Records the Law the Town claims exempts such material the Town responded, citing the privacy exemption, further explaining "since there are many public safety officers residing in the Town of Yarmouth, we felt it necessary to withhold the information". The Town provided no additional substantive information to support its exemption claim. In this response the Town failed to notify Mr. Driscoll ofhis 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 of this right. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727--2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. Phillip B. Gaudet SPR15/436 Page Two July 27, 2015 Phone numbers Please be advised that 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); see also 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. Accordingly, Town is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and Regulations it 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. In its denial of access to telephone numbers the Town provided no basis under the Law. Accordingly, whereas the Town has not overcome the presumption that the redacted portion of the 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, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. 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 t this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office t e sec.state.ma.us. cc: Mr. Sean F. Driscoll