Matthew Haney v. Mashpee, Town of (SPR 20201103)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 21, 2020 SPR20/1103 Rodney C. Collins Town Manager Town of Mashpee 16 Great Neck Road North Mashpee, MA 02649 Dear Mr. Collins: I have received the petition of Matthew Haney appealing the response of the Town of Mashpee (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Haney requested: 1) “Any and all public records relating to ‘Intergovernmental Agreement By and between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts April 22, 2008’ 2) Any and all public records relating to Town of Mashpee Special Town Meeting April 7, 2008 Article 1 3) Any and all public records relating to Town of Mashpee Special Town Meeting April 7, 2008 Article 2.” The Town responded on July 2, 2020, providing several responsive records. Unsatisfied with this response, Mr. Haney petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR 20/1103, 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, § 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); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. 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

Rodney Collins SPR20/1103 Page 2 July 21, 2020 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 appeal petition, Mr. Haney indicates that he believes that the Town possess additional responsive records. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town informed this office that Mr. Haney has clarified his request, and that the Town is searching for additional potentially responsive records. The Town also indicated that it intends to provide Mr. Haney with a supplemental response. This office encourages the parties to continue to communicate to facilitate providing responsive records efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, whereas the Town has indicated that it intends to provide a supplemental response, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Said response must be made in accordance with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.me.us. Mr. Haney may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Haney