Richard Karp v. Canton, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20190382)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 4, 2019 SPR19/382; SPR19/384 Tracy K. Kenney Town Clerk and Records Access Officer Memorial Hall 801 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Ms. Kenney: I have received the petition of Richard Karp appealing the responses of the Town of Canton (Town) to requests for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on December 6, 2018, Mr. Karp requested: "Complaint of Open Meeting Law Violation of the Board of Assessor's issued to the Town Administrator (2018)" (SPR19/382); and "Complaint of Open Meeting Law Violation of the Board of Assessor's issued to the Chairman of the Board of Selectman (2016)" (SPRl 9/384). The Town provided a response on December 21, 2018 and Mr. Karp appealed. 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, § lO(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. 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

Tracy K. Kenney SPR19/382; SPR19/384 Page 2 March 4, 2019 The Town's December 2ist response The Town's December 21st response indicates" ... there are no complaints on file alleging an Open Meeting Law violation by the Board of Assessor's, other than your own verbal communication." My understanding is that Mr. Karp submitted multiple requests on December 6, 2018. The Town's December 21st response also includes a fee estimate for $2.58 to provide "the remainder of your request." Conclusion The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian ofrecords at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii). Therefore, based on the Town's response in which it explains" ... there are no complaints on file alleging an Open Meeting Law violation by the Board of Assessor's, other than your own verbal communication," I find the Town met its burden in responding to these requests. Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Karp