Alex Belote v. Wayland, Town of (SPR 20211134)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 18, 2021 SPR21/1134 Louise Miller Records Access Officer Town of Wayland 41 Cochituate Road Wayland, MA 01778 Dear Ms. O’Neil: I have received the petition of Alex Belote appealing the response of the Town of Wayland (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 14, 2021, Mr. Belote requested, “…to inspect or obtain copies of public records (from November 1st 2020 to March 30th 2021), relating to allegations made against me on December 11th 2020 (Report included/attached). This includes any mention of myself, Traditions of Wayland, an/or corresponded about this incident (internally or externally) during the dates listed above. This shall include all written or electronic records, notes of phone or verbal correspondence(s), text messages, a copy of any call on a recorded line, any emails, and phone records.” Prior Appeal This appeal was subject to a prior determination. See SPR21/1119 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 5, 2021). In my May 5th determination, I found that the Town provided a supplemental response on April 29, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Belote petitioned this office and SPR21/1134 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

Louise Miller SPR21/1134 Page 2 May 18, 2021 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 current appeal, Mr. Belote states “…I find it highly suspect that Wayland put April 29th as the date on the document after they saw in the letter you forwarded them that the 29th was the tenth day to respond (and then sent it to me via email only 1.5 hours after your letter of appeal was received). If it was created on April 29th [then] was it not sent via email, and if it was sent via mail, why did they not mention that in their response or email. I have not received anything from them in the mail.” Based on the foregoing, it is unclear what the basis of Mr. Belote’s appeal is. Mr. Belote is advised 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(l)(f). Mr. Belote may wish to clarify this matter and his objections to the Town’s response. Please be aware that all petitions for appeal of a response by a records access officer must be made within 90 calendar days of the date of the response by a records access officer. See 32.08(1)(d). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Alex Belote