MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Patrick N. Bryant v. Wellesley, Town of (SPR 20190351)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 02-14-2019

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20190351 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Patrick N. Bryant concerning records held by Wellesley, Town of, opened 02-14-2019. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20190351
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Patrick N. Bryant
Custodian
Wellesley, Town of
Date Opened
02-14-2019
Date Closed
03-01-2019
Date Request Submitted
01-30-2019
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Went to Court
No

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 1, 2019 SPR19/0351 Blythe C. Robinson Town of Wellesley Wellesley Town Hall 525 Washington Street Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Ms. Robinson: I have received the petition of Patrick N. Bryant, Esq. appealing the response of the Town of Wellesley (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Attorney Bryant requested meeting minutes from a December 19, 2018 Selectmen's meeting. The Town responded to his request providing redacted responsive records. 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, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(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, § 1O (b )(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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

Blythe C. Robinson SPR19/0351 Page 2 March 1, 2019 Appeal The Town provided Attorney Bryant with a redacted copy of the minutes from the ''Board of Selectmen Executive Session: December 19, 2018." The Town indicates that the minutes were "reviewed and approved in an executive session held on January 10, 2019, however they were not approved for release because the matter that generated the executive session has not been resolved." The Town additionally states that the minutes "have been redacted on advice of Town Counsel." In Attorney Bryant's petition for appeal, he asserts, on behalf of this clients, "that the Town's stated basis for the executive session was unfounded and that, regardless of whether the Supervisor [o f Public Records] agrees that the executive session was convened under false or incorrect pretenses, the redaction of minutes from the session is not permitted by the Public Records Law." Attorney Bryant indicates that "the Board's stated basis for the executive session is listed on the posted agenda as: 'to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining with the International Association of Firefights Local #1795;'" however, Attorney Bryant asserts that "[t]here was no collective bargaining issue to discuss, nor could there be, given that there was no actual or pending collective bargaining at the time." Attorney Bryant further indicates that "[t]he Town's production of the redacted minutes was not accompanied by any justification for the redaction." Open Meeting Law Attorney Bryant's appeal is related to the release of executive session minutes which raises issues that potentially invoke the Open Meeting Law. Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) and not this office, I decline to provide a determination as to the content of the executive session minutes at this time. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that you contact the AGO should you seek determination on this issue. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick N. Bryant, Esq.