James Maher v. Dedham, Town of - Parks & Recreation Commission (SPR 20212208)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 14, 2021 SPR21/2208 Lauren Goldberg, Esq. Town of Dedham - Parks & Recreation Commission 269 Common Street Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Attorney Goldberg: I have received the petition of James Maher appealing the response of the Town of Dedham Parks & Recreation Commission (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 11, 2021, Mr. Maher queried “[w]hen will the Executive Session Minutes of my censorship become available?” The Town responded on August 12, 2021, denying access to the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Maher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2208, 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. 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. 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

Lauren Goldberg, Esq. SPR21/2208 Page 2 September 14, 2021 The Town’s August 12th response In its August 12, 2021 response, the Town asserts “. . . it is Town’s position that such records will remain exempt from disclosure until the Open Meeting Law and/or the Public Records Law due to the nature of such records.” Citing G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f), the Town states, “. . . the minutes of an executive session held under exemption (1) of the Open Meeting Law may be withheld until the purpose of that executive session has been served. In this case, there are only a small number of people involved, making it highly likely that disclosure of the meeting minutes and related materials would undermine the purpose for which the meeting was held in closed session, i.e., to protect ‘rights and reputation of individuals’. It is the Town’s position, therefore, that exemption (1) of the Open Meeting continues to allow to withhold the executive session meeting minutes and related records in their entirety.” Further, the Town’s response states that the executive session meeting minutes “. . . may be withheld under applicable sections of the Public Records Law, specifically including . . . (c) (as personnel records and as records that are highly personal in nature), and (f) (to protect the name and identifying details of any victim or witness).” The nature of Mr. Maher’s request and the response that was provided to him raise issues that invoke the Open Meeting Law. An interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office. Consequently, I am unable to opine on this matter at this time. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that the parties contact the Attorney General’s Office if they seek a determination on this issue. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: James Maher