Amy Troup v. Halifax, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20201470)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 4, 2020 SPR20/1470 Charles Seelig Town Administrator Town of Halifax 499 Plymouth Street Halifax, MA 02338 Dear Mr. Seelig: I have received the petition of Amy Troup appealing the response of the Town of Halifax (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 2, 2020, Ms. Troup requested “. . . copies of any and all emails, letters, and correspondence concerning Amy L Troup from any person and/or individual, including but not limited to [elected, hired, union and all union, and all exterior correspondence in and out of the town hall] from April 1, 2020 to the present.” Previous appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/1240 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 6, 2020). In my August 6th determination, I ordered the Town to provide Ms. Troup with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. Subsequently, the Town provided responses. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Ms. Troup petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1470, 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. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of 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

Charles Seelig SPR20/1470 Page 2 September 4, 2020 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records ----- custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s responses The Town provided a response on August 11, 2020. In its August 11th response, the Town explains that “[i]n order to respond to the request, all employees including those on elected and/or appointed boards and committees, will be requested to provide copies of [the requested records]. As the total number of employees who will have to be contacted and who will have to check their own files, e-mails, etc. for such documents numbers above 200, it will take a material amount of time to contact all the employees and for the employees to conduct their own individual document searches. The estimated cost of this work is $200.” In an email correspondence on August 12, 2020, Ms. Troup informed the Town to proceed with her request. Subsequently, on August 17, 2020, the Town provided records responsive to Ms. Troup’s request. On August 17, 2020, Ms. Troup, indicating certain records were not provided expanded her request and stated “. . . also to be clear I said referenced amy l troup it would encompass ms troup, Mrs troup, amy, troup, ‘her’ as in open meeting violation[,] amy troup[,] alt[,] or any reference about me.” On August 19, 2020, the Town confirmed the search terms and proceeded with the gathering of the records as directed by Ms. Troup in her August 12th correspondence. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, this office was notified that on August 26, 2020, the Town provided Ms. Troup with a supplemental response which included a fee estimate pertaining to this request. The Town’s August 26th response states “[t]he Town of Halifax has completed its work in response to your request for documents based on your notice of August 12, 2020 to proceed with the search based on the criteria the Town provided to you on August 11, 2020. These documents will be made available to you once you have remitted the $200 in search costs as mentioned in the Town’s letter to you of August 11, 2020.” In an email correspondence on September 4, 2020, Ms. Troup states the following: [T]here is no reply from Charlie Seelig on my plight to receive my freedom of information request. fully receive, not partially. . . . I asked for anything that referred to me not just items that say Amy L Troup. I clarified that, that does not constitute a new request. . . . I also am trying to make sure to receive the redacted information showing communication about me, sent

Charles Seelig SPR20/1470 Page 3 September 4, 2020 with crossed out confidential information is also part of the original request. . . . they may have tried to comply by the 26th of August which is over a month in violation yet I am still fighting for my freedom of information public records request[.]” Where the Town provided a fee estimate in its August 26th response, it is unclear what the basis is of Ms. Troup’s September 4th correspondence. Ms. Troup is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). Accordingly, Ms. Troup must describe her specific objections to the Town’s August 26th fee estimate or any previously provided response. Conclusion Accordingly, Ms. Troup may clarify this matter. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Amy Troup