← Back to Search
Ronald Alexander v. Natick, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20200106)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 01-17-2020
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20200106 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Ronald Alexander concerning records held by Natick, Town of - Town Administrator, opened 01-17-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20200106
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Ronald Alexander
- Custodian
- Natick, Town of - Town Administrator
- Date Opened
- 01-17-2020
- Date Closed
- 01-17-2020
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 9 Business Days
- 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 January 17, 2020 SPR20/0106 Melissa Malone Town of Natick, Town Administrator 13 East Central Street, 1s t Floor Natick, MA 01760 Dear Ms. Malone: I have received the petition of Ronald Alexander appealing the response of the Town of . . Natick (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § IOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on January 8, 2020, Mr. Alexander requested "to inspect all invoices received by the Town of Natick for legal services provided by Town Counsel, Town Labor Counsel, counsels for the Public Schools, counsels for the Natick Police Department, and any other department of the Town of Natick, MA." Tlte 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); (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 Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us Melissa Malone SPR20/0106 Page 2 January 17, 2020 The Town's January 11" response In its January 17, 2019 response, the Town provided Mr. Alexander with eight different invoices containing several redactions. Unsatisfied with the Town's response, Mr. Alexander petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/0106, was opened as a result. Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c.66, § lO(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 ... ") see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Town's response did not contain the specificity required. Instead, the Town simply redacted portions of the responsive records without claiming any exemption(s) in the Public Records Law to support the redactions made. Accordingly, I find that the Town has not established how it can withhold portions of the record(s) at issue in this appeal. Consequently, I find the Town did not meet its burden of specificity in redacting the records. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Alexander with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within .10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma. us. Sincerely, · ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander