← Back to Search
Rich Saltzberg v. Tisbury, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20201703)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 09-15-2020
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20201703 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Rich Saltzberg concerning records held by Tisbury, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 09-15-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20201703
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Rich Saltzberg
- Custodian
- Tisbury, Town of - Town Clerk
- Date Opened
- 09-15-2020
- Date Closed
- 09-28-2020
- Date Request Submitted
- 08-27-2020
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- 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 of Records September 28, 2020 SPR20/1703 Pam Bennett Human Resources Coordinator Town of Tisbury P.O. Box 1239 Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 Dear Pam Bennett: I have received the petition of Richard Saltzberg of the Martha’s Vineyard Times appealing the nonresponse of the Town of Tisbury (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically on August 27, 2020, Mr. Satlzberg requested “the last four documents Tisbury Select Board members (formerly known as Tisbury Selectmen) signed in their capacity as Tisbury Police Commissioners.” 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 theNorfolk 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. 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. Subsequent to the intervention by a member of the Public Records Division, I learned that the Town provided Mr. Saltzberg a response dated September 16, 2020. 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 Pam Bennett SPR20/1703 Page 2 September 28, 2020 Conclusion In light of the Town’s September 16th letter, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Saltzberg may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Saltzberg Hillary Conklin