Sierra Vaughan-Gabor v. Easthampton, City of (SPR 20211641)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 20, 2021 SPR21/1641 Barbara LaBombard City Clerk City of Easthampton 50 Payson Ave Easthampton, MA 01027 Dear Ms. LaBombard: I have received the petition of Sierra Vaughan-Gabor of A Knee is Not Enough appealing the response of the City of Easthampton(City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 16, 2021, Ms. Vaughan-Gabor requested “any information and records regarding violations and/or complaints lodged against city councilors of Easthampton MA in the past 12 years…any information and records regarding the results of these violations and/or complaints (examples include but are not limited to: sanctions, reprimands, warnings, investigations).” On June 24, 2021, the City responded and provided another response on June 28, 2021. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Vaughan-Gabor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/1641, 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 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. 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

Barbara LaBombard SPR21/1641 Page 2 July 20, 2021 Current appeal In her July 3, 2021 appeal Ms. Vaughan-Gabor states “[i]t seems that instead of doing the checking of internal files on their end, we are being asked to identify specific data (see email response from Jun 24). I made a clear request for information spanning a particular time (can be seen at bottom of email chain) and it is concerning to me that when a resident asks for data the city is relying on an individual's institutional knowledge rather than checking a database.” Based on the foregoing, it is unclear what the basis of Ms. Vaughan-Gabor’s appeal is. Ms. Vaughan-Gabor 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). Accordingly, Ms. Vaughan-Gabor must describe her specific objections to the City’s June 24th and June 28th responses. Conclusion Based on the above, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Sierra Vaughan-Gabor