Michael Corsetti v. Manchester-by-the-Sea, Town of - (SPR 20200958)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 26, 2020 SPR20/0958 Christina St. Pierre Town of Manchester-by-the Sea 10 Central Street Manchester-by-the Sea, MA 01944 Dear Ms. St. Pierre: I have received the petition of Michael Corsetti appealing the response of the Town of Manchester-by-the Sea (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Corsetti requested the audio/visual records for the following meetings: 1. Planning Board: December 9, 2019; November 18, 2019; and July 8, 2019; 2. Zoning Board of Appeals: July 7, 2019-January 23, 2020; and 3. Conservation Commission: July 7, 2019-January 23, 2020. Prior appeal The responsive records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR20/0878 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) (June 15, 2020). In a May 15, 2020 response, the Town, through its Legal Counsel Michele E. Randazzo of KP Law, P.C., provided Mr. Corsetti with a $100.00 dollar estimate to produce the audio recordings of the specific meetings in his request. The Town indicates it will charge Mr. Corsetti for search time at the lowest paid person capable of compiling and reproducing responsive records. Specifically, the estimate states: “[h]ere it is estimated that there are a total of 24 meetings for the date ranges specified (3 Planning Board meetings; 7 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting(s); 14 Conservation Commission meetings). Recordings for these meetings would need to be processed for digital transfer and/or upload to a digital file. It is anticipated that it will take approximately 4 hours of employee time to accomplish this. The lowest paid person capable of performing this work is paid more than $25/hour, and therefore, [Mr. Corsetti] will be charged $25/hour, for a total fee of $100.00.” 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

Christina St. Pierre SPR20/0958 Page 2 June 26, 2020 In Mr. Corsetti’s petition to the Supervisor for the prior appeal, he indicated that he paid the fee estimate and the Town processed his payment on May 18, 2020; however, he had not received the audio recordings. As a result, this office opened the prior appeal, SPR20/0878. Mr. Corsetti did not object to the estimate; only that the Town did not provide any of the responsive recordings from the meetings specified in his request. By email on June 14, 2020, you informed this office that the Town provided Mr. Corsetti with the responsive recordings. On June 15, 2020, a Senior Attorney in the Public Records Division asked whether the Town withheld any of the responsive audio/video recordings and/or redacted any content from the records. The Town did not provide any further response to this office. Current appeal After Mr. Corsetti received the audio/video recordings, he realized that he was not provided with the September 16, 2019 Zoning Board/Planning Board audio/video recording for that meeting. In addition, after Mr. Corsetti reviewed the content of the audio/video recordings, he found that the September 25, 2019 audio/video recording did not contain all the content, and appears to be altered or redacted. In his June 16th petition to the Supervisor, Mr. Corsetti asserts, “The missing section just happens to be the hearing of the person requesting these public records, Michael Corsetti.” As a result of Mr. Corsetti’s petition, the current appeal was opened. 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, § 10A(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, § 10(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). Burden of specificity in responding Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies when withholding information. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. -------------------------------

Christina St. Pierre SPR20/0958 Page 3 June 26, 2020 at 511. The Town must clarify whether it is withholding or redacting any of the requested records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Corsetti with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations as soon as practicable. 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: Michael Corsetti