← Back to Search
David Bixby v. Chatham, Town of (SPR 20192054)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 10-08-2019
ClosedAppealDecision
SPR 20192054 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by David Bixby concerning records held by Chatham, Town of, opened 10-08-2019. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20192054
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- David Bixby
- Custodian
- Chatham, Town of
- Date Opened
- 10-08-2019
- Date Closed
- 10-22-2019
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- NA
- 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 S11pen1/sor of Records October 21, 2019 SPR19/2054 Terence M. Whalen, AICP Principal Projects and Operations Administrator Town of Chatham 221 Crowell Road Chatham, MA 02633 Dear Mr. Whalen: I have received the petition of David Bixby appealing the response of the Town of Chatham (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Bixby requested four categories ofrecords pertaining to the Town's airport. The Town provided a response to Mr. Bixby on September 9, 2019. Mr. Bixby appealed the Town's response to this office on October 7, 2019. Appeal Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten business days of receipt of the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)-(b). The response may contain, among other things, an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b). All records custodians must comply with both the Public Records Law and the Regulations with respect to the timeliness of response. 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 of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii), (b)(ii). Also, the duty to comply with requests for records extends to identifying the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iii). 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) (written response must "identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based ... "); 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). One Ashbmion Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us Terence M. Whalen, AICP SPR19/2054 Page 2 October 21,201.9 Appeal In Mr. Bixby's October ih appeal, he states "I argue that while it may be true that neither the town nor the airport commission has the records I seek in their possession, I suggest they are not being entirely forthright." Town explained to Mr. Bixby in their September 9th response that "[t]o answer and close out your below referenced Public Records Request (PRR) regarding 'Operation of AircraftN282VP at Chatham Airport' and 'SPR19/1823' (two letters attached) please note that all responsive public records including available tail numbers (which does not include references for N282VP) had been provided to you in PRR response letter dated May 25,. 2016 (also attached)." 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), (b)(ii). Conclusion Based on Town's September 9th response, I find Town has met its burden in responding to this request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(ii)-(iii). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: David Bixby