Alana Melanson v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20160344)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords June 10,2016 SPR16/344 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 copies of"[a]ll notices of intent to sue the town of Chelmsford, or one of its departments, boards/committees or employees from July 1, 2013 to the present." The Town initially provided a redacted copy of the responsive record. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( 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). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10 (c ); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). 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. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. Paul E. Cohen SPR16/344 Page 2 June 10,2016 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (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 ($1 0. 00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. To assist in requesting and responding to requests for public records please refer to our publication, A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This document is available on the Internet, free of charge, at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdflguide.pdf. Attorneys on my staff are available during regular business hours to answer general questions regarding the Public Records Law. In addition, members of my staff will visit a records custodian in person to conduct training workshops on the Public Records Law upon request. Please contact my office directly at the telephone number provided in this determination for further information. Previous appeal and determination This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR15/776 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 18, 2015). In my December 18 determination, I found portions of the redacted letter contain information the redaction of which was not supported by the exemptions cited by the Town. I reviewed the responsive record in camera to facilitate making this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6) (In-camera Inspections and Submissions of Data); see also G.L.c. 66, § 1. I ordered the Town to review the umedacted record and provide Ms. Melanson with the non-exempt portions of the requested records. The Town responded to the order in a letter dated January 12,2016 in which it provided another redacted copy ofthe record. Subsequently, Ms. Melanson informed this office she objects to this response and seeks further action. This appeal (SPR16/344) was opened as a result. Current appeal (SPR16/344) In her most recent petition to this office Ms. Melanson explains that although the Town provided a less-redacted copy of the responsive record, "the second response contains none of the narrative of what occurred." Ms. Melanson asks this office to order the Town to provide "a less redacted version of the document to [her] that preserves the narrative leading to this notice of intent to sue." Although the Town cited statutes and exemptions to support the redactions within the responsive record in its initial response, the Town did not cite an exemption to the Public Records Law in its January 12 response. It is important to note that Ms. Melanson does not appeal the application of exemptions; she does believe, however, that the Town withheld

Mr. Paul E. Cohen SPR16/344 Page 3 June 10, 2016 portions of the record to which the stated exemptions do not apply. I understand an attorney on my staff contacted you about this matter. Order I find the Town has not met its burden of specificity to withhold the entirety of the redacted information under an exemption to the Public Records Law. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r ofBoston, 378 Mass. 281,289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Accordingly, the Town is hereby ordered to provide Ms. Melanson a response to the request without delay prepared in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Regulations, and this order. A copy of any 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. In the alternative, in order to facilitate my review of the matter, the Town may provide this office with an unredacted copy of the responsive record for in camera review along with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of the claimed exemptions to the requested portions of the responsive record. cc: Ms. Alana Melanson Ms. Janelle Austin, Esq.