William A. Moschella, Esq. v. Rowley, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20170701)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 5, 2017 SPR17/701 Joseph S. Fair, Esq. KP Law, P.C. 101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Fair: I have received the petition of William A. Moschella, Sr., Esq. appealing the response of the Town of Rowley (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Attorney Moschella's request letter states, "under the public records law, I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that related specially to information concerning the following: the three (3) copies in the custody or control of the three members of the Town water board commissioner that relate to the executive session minutes for September 11, 2015 redacted or un-redacted." A review of the petition Attorney Moschella filed with the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) reveals that Attorney Moschella did not provide a copy of the petition to the Town's records access officer. In petitioning the Supervisor, the requester must provide a copy of such petition to the records access officer associated with such petition. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(h). Town's response In your May 19th response, you explained that the May 3th request is the fourth request from Attorney Moschella sent to the Town during a single month related to the September 11, 2015 executive session minutes. The Town provided a redacted copy of the September 11, 2015 minutes on April 20, 2017. Furthermore, Attorney Moschella sent two (2) additional requests related in whole or in part to those same minutes, which you responded to on behalf of the Town by separate letters dated May 5, 201 7. I note that the prior requests referenced in your May 19th letter relate to the same records that were the subject of prior requests and a prior appeal. See SPRl 7/511 Determination of the Supervisor of Records. (May 5, 2017). Your May 19th letter explains to Attorney Moschella that it is unclear from his May 3th request as to which particular documents he is requesting. You state, "this is especially the case in light of the fact that you were previously supplied with a redacted copy of the September 11, One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Joseph S. Fair, Esq. SPRl 7/701 Page 2 June 5, 2017 2015 Executive Session minutes, as well as additional responses to the follow-up requests that you sent thereafter." You have asked Attorney Moschella to clarify the exact documents that he is seeking and the Town will then provide a supplemental response. In my May 5th determination I advised Attorney Moschella, and I advise him once again, that in making a public records request he must precisely identify the documents that he is seeking from the Town. Under the Public Records Law, "requests for records shall include a reasonable description of the requested record to the records access officer so that he or she can identify and locate it promptly." G.L. c. 66, § lO(a)(i); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(b). To assist Attorney Moschella in requesting public records in the future, I refer him to our publication, A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This document is available on the Internet at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf. Additionally, Public Records Division attorneys are available during regular business hours to answer general questions regarding the Public Records Law. Open Meeting Law - Executive Session Attorney Moschella claims that the Town's May 19th response fails to state why the executive session minutes were redacted and which exemption ar,plies. However, the Town previously claimed both clauses of Exemption ( c) in its April 20t, response when Attorney Moschella was provided with the minutes. Furthermore, Attorney Moschella also addresses issues regarding the Open Meeting Law (OML). The authority over the OML rests with the Office of the Attorney General (AGO), Division of Open Government. I noted in my May 5th determination that the AGO has already opined on the issues surrounding the September 11, 2015 meeting. See OML 2016 -21. Therefore, Attorney Moschella should contact the AGO ifhe has any further questions or concerns regarding the OML. Accordingly, whereas the Town has properly responded to Attorney Moschella's May 8, 2017 request letter, I consider this appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Susan G. Hazen, RAO William A. Moschella, Sr., Esq.