Melanson, Alana v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20150756)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords December 18,2015 SPRlS/756 Mr. Paul E. Cohen Town Manager Town of Chelmsford 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824-2777 Dear Mr. Cohen: I have received the petition of Alana Melanson of the Lowell Sun appealing the response of Town of Chelmsford (Town) to her request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Ms. Melanson requested two categories of records. In a written response you explained that no records exist in response to the first part of Ms. Melanson's request. In the second part of her request, Ms. Melanson sought copies of"[a]ll notices of intent to sue the town of Chelmsford, or one of its departments, boards/c ommittees or employees from July 1, 2013 to the present." In response you found a record responsive and provided a fee estimate. The estimated fees were paid and documents provided. Subsequently, the Town returned the check submitted for fees, choosing to waive applicable fees. In her petition to this office Ms. Melanson objected to the "wholesale redacting of pages" by the Town. While Ms. Melanson "believe[s] it is possible to redact such a sensitive document to protect the identity of the alleged victim without leaving the vast majority of it blank." Ms. Melanson requests "a less redacted version of the document ... that preserves both the alleged victim's privacy and the narrative leading to this notice of intent to sue." In camera Inspections and Submissions ofD ata In her appeal Ms. Melanson provided to this office a copy of the redacted record. Subsequent to a telephone conversation with you, the Town agreed to provide a copy of the unredacted document to my office for review. My authority to require the submission of documents for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6); See also G.L.c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. Paul E. Cohen SPR15/756 Page Two December 18,2015 Commission Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981). Documents are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Documents are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.03. This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit a copy of the relevant documents to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release documents reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, documents reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. I wish to thank Mr. Cohen and the Town for its cooperation. The redacted record consists of a document provided by the Law Office of Brian W. Leahey, P.C. Attorney Leahey represents a client wishing to file a letter of presentment on a claim of negligence against the Town's School Department. Pursuant to Section 4 of Chapter 258 of the Massachusetts General Laws, "[a] civil action shall not be instituted against a public employer on a claim for damages under this chapter unless the claimant shall have first presented his claim in writing ... " G. L. c. 258, § 4. In its response to Ms. Melanson, the Town cited statutes and exemptions to support its redactions of the Leahey letter. It is important to note that Ms. Melanson does not appeal the application of the exemptions claimed; she does believe, however, that the Town withheld portions of the record to which the stated exemptions do not apply. Upon review of the materials submitted in camera, I agree. I find that portions of the redacted letter contain information the redaction of which is not supported by the exemptions cited by the Town. Order Accordingly, whereas I find that portions of the redacted record contain information that is public information, the Town is hereby ordered to review the unredacted record and provide Ms. Melanson with the non-exempt portions of the requested records. A copy of any cover letter accompanying such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. It is not necessary to send a copy of the redacted record to this office.

Mr. Paul E. Cohen SPR15/756 Page Three December 18, 2015 If there are any fees associated with this response a written, good faith estimate_m_ust_b_e__ provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2) (where cost of complying with a request for public records is expected to exceed ten dollars ($10.00), custodian ofrecords shall provide written good faith estimate). Once the fees are paid, u must provide the responsive records. cc: Ms. Alana Melanson