Chris M. Grant v. Uxbridge, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20200213)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records February 14, 2020 SPR20/0213 Kelly Cote Town Clerk Town of Uxbridge 21 South Main Street Uxbridge, MA 01569 Dear Ms. Cote: I have received the petition of Chris Grant appealing the response of the Town of Uxbridge (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Grant requested" ... the former employees exit interviews performed in 2018 and/or 2019 along with any rep01is related to them." Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR19/1237 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 1, 2019); SPR19/2361 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2019); SPR20/0121 Determination of the Supervisor of Reco;ds (February 3, 2020). The Town provided an unredacted copy of the Exit Interview Summary as a result of a request from the Supervisor for an in camera review and I thank the Town for providing these records and for its cooperation. On January 16, 2020, the Town provided an amended Exit Interview Summary to Mr. Grant. In the Town's previous response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions. Under the first clause of Exemption (c), the Town claimed that personnel files are exempt from disclosure; under the second clause, the Town cited the implication of privacy interests. Unsatisfied with the amended version of the Exit Interview Summary Mr. Grant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/0213, was opened as a result. 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 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

Kelly Cote SPR20/0213 Page 2 February 14, 2020 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. Current Appeal In his February 3rd appeal to this office Mr. Grant states, " ... [n Jot only did they not provide an improved version of the redacted report they also did not provide a new reasoning for their refusal to comply with the determination ... This is the reason why I appealed yet again." In his November 22, 2019 appeal, Mr. Grant appeared to have no objection with the names being redacted as he stated, " ... since the names will be redacted there is no 'personal information' shared ... " Upon review of the initial redacted Exit Interview Report and the Amended Exit Interview Report, it appears the Town removed the redactions in the following areas: Page 2: Introduction reference to Town Manager; Salary & Benefits & Training, Uxbridge Leaving Salary and New Salary; Page 3: Uxbridge Leaving Salary and New Salary continued; references to Department Heads, pronouns, staff employees. Board of Selectmen- department heads and "for those who were not the targets of the cuts"; Page 4: pronouns, department heads, staff employees and 5th paragraph. Town Manager first two sentences, part of third sentence and fifth and sixth sentence; Page 5: most of second paragraph; Finance Committee and Other Common Theme: "this staffer and department heads; and Page 6: Conclusions: staff employees, department heads and "others points to the Board, and others pointing to both." Pursuant to 950 C.M.R 32.08(1)(±), this appeal does not describe the nature of the requestor's objections to the response. Specifically, it is unclear what areas of the amended Exit Interview Report are objectionable. Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a)(i). Further, it is unclear whether Mr. Grant objects to the Town's exemption claim, and if so, Mr. Grant has not explained the basis of his objection. Consequently, this office is unable to opine on the appeal at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 )(f) (all petitions for appeal shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the nature

Kelly Cote SPR20/0213 Page 3 February 14, 2020 of the requestor's objections to the response or failure to issue a timely response). Mr. Grant may wish to modify and/or clarify the nature of the objections. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Chris M. Grant