MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Christopher M. Sabbag v. Hanson, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20180239)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 02-23-2018

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20180239 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Christopher M. Sabbag concerning records held by Hanson, Town of - Town Administrator, opened 02-23-2018. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20180239
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Christopher M. Sabbag
Custodian
Hanson, Town of - Town Administrator
Date Opened
02-23-2018
Date Closed
03-09-2018
Response Provided Date
11-08-2017
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Time to Comply
N/A
Went to Court
No
In Camera Opened
03-20-2018
In Camera Closed
04-09-2018

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords March 9, 2018 SPR18/239 Joshua R. Coleman, Esq. Collins, Loughran & Peloquin, P.C. 220 Norwood Park South, Suite lD Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Attorney Coleman: I have received the petition of Christopher Sabbag appealing the response of the Town of Hanson (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1 OA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, Mr. Sabbag requested a copy of: l. Any and all investigation reports authorized by the Town, Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen regarding the activities of the administrative assistant at Camp Kiwanee leading up to the resignation of an identified person; 2. Any separation agreement between the Town and an identified person; 3. The resignation letter from an identified person; 4. All documents evidencing the total dollar amount for the Camp Kiwanee 5. investigation; 6. · All documents evidencing the total dollar amount for the investigation of an identified 7. person; 8. Posted Board of Selectmen agendas for February 2, 2017 and February 7, 2017; and _ 9. Any audit reports regarding Camp Kiwanee/Recreation for the calendar years 201 Q- 2016. The Town provided Mr. Sabbag with the records or information responsive to requests 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. However, the Town withheld some content in the separation agreement (request 2), and withheld the investigation report (request 1) in its entirety pursuant to Exemption ( c ). Previous appeal The responsive separation agreement and investigation report was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPRl 7/1454 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) (October 23, 20I 7). In my October 23rd determination I found that the Town did not meet its burden of specificity in claiming Exemption (c ) to withhold the investigation report in its entirety 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

Joshua R. Coleman, Esq. SPR18/239 Page2 March 9, 2018 or to withhold content from the separation agreement. I ordered the Town to provide J\1r. Sabbag with a supplemental response concerning its Exemption ( c) claim. On November 8, 2017, the Town provided J\1r. Sabbag with a copy of the investigation report, the separation agreement and the legal invoices related to the investigation. The Town also provided Mr. Sabbag with a response to explain the redactions that were made on each page of the investigation report and settlement agreement under Exemption (c) and Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law, and in accordance with the 2013 Superior Court decision in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Executive Office of Administration and Finance. The basis ofl\1r. Sabbag's January 16, 2018 petition to the Supervisor pertains to his dissatisfaction with the Town's redaction of both the investigation report and settlement agreement. Mr. Sabbag contends that the investigation report and settlement agreement have been overly redacted. Mr. Sabbag also contends that once a record is created or received by a public entity, the whole record is a public record, especially since the investigation has been completed. In camera review At this time, in order to facilitate a final determination as to the applicability of the redactions under the exemption claims made by the Town, I request that the Tmvn provide this office an un-redacted copy of the responsive investigation report and settlement agreement for in camera inspection without delay. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the withheld portions of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); 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 Comm'n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records 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. Records 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. 32.08(4)(c). Furthermore, this office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records 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.

Joshua R. Coleman, Esq. SPR18/239 Page 3 March 9, 2018 The Town may provide this office with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of an exemption to the responsive records, or redacted portions of the responsive · records. However, please be advised that, unlike the materials provided for in camera review, any such additional correspondence would be placed in the file for this appeal and would be subject to public disclosure as a public record. It is my understanding that you have been in contact with a Public Records Division attorney regarding this appeal. Order Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the investigation report and settlement agreement without delay. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Sabbag Michael McCue, Town Administrator