Caitlin Russell v. Dennis, Town of (SPR 20160535)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords August 5, 2016 SPR16/535 Ms. Michelle E. Randazzo, Esq. KPLaw 101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Randazzo: I have received the petition of Caitlin Russell seeking further consideration of her public records request after receipt of redacted executive session minutes from the Town of Dennis Board of Selectmen (Board) pursuant to Exemptions (a) under the Open Meeting Law exception for litigation, G. L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3), Exemption (c) ofthe Public Records Law and the common law attorney client privilege. See SPR16/106 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2016). Specifically, Ms. Russell requested an electronic copy ofthe Board's executive session minutes from the July 6, 2015 meeting. On July 6, in compliance with my June 16 order, the Board provided another copy of the executive session minutes with certain redactions removed. The Board continues to assert that it is entitled to withhold information protected under the common law attorney-client privilege, as well as an exception to the Open Meeting Law as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (a); G. L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3). Ms. Russell appealed and requests that the Supervisor compel the Board to comply with the June 16, 2016 determination with respect to this redacted portion of the record. Previous determination -June 16, 2016 (SPR1611 06) In my June 16 determination I found that whereas the executive session minutes were reviewed by the Division of Open Government in the Office of the Attorney General (AGO), and that whereas the interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the AGO, I declined to provide a determination as to the redactions made pursuant to the Open Meeting Law. G. L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3). I decline to change this finding. In my June 16 order I found that the Board had met its burden with respect to redacted portions of the executive session minutes that pertained to medical information pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. I decline to change this finding. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Ms. Michelle E. Randazzo SPR16/535 Page2 August 5, 2016 The Board's July 6, 2016 written response In your July 6 response to Ms. Russell, you state that the Board disagrees with the Supervisor's ultimate determination, in particular with respect to my conclusion that the Town failed to properly invoke Exemption (c) and the attorney client privilege with respect to certain redactions made to the executive session minutes. However, you further explain "[w]ithout waiving these objections, however, the Town is producing to you (Ms. Russell) the July 6, 2015 executive session minutes, having removed those redactions that the Supervisor determined were not appropriate, with one exception. The Town continues to assert that it is entitled to withhold information protected under the attorney client privilege, as well as G. L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3), operating through Exemption (a)." The privacy statute does not apply to requests for public records The Town also disputes the rejection of the application of the privacy statute to support withholding public records. G. L. c. 214, § lB. As previously noted, the above-cited section does not apply to records requested outside of litigation and will continue to fail to support a denial of access to information responsive to a public records request made under the Public Records Law. Decline to opine on applicability of Open Meeting Law The Town is now invoking a provision of the Open Meeting Law to support its claim of withholding certain redacted information. Whereas the interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the AGO, I declined to provide a determination as to the redactions made pursuant to the Open Meeting Law. G. L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3). Conclusions I find this subsequent correspondence from the Board satisfies the obligations under the Public Records Law and complies with my June 16 order. Accordingly I will consider this administrative appeal is closed. cc: Ms. Caitlin Russell