Framingham Reporter v. Wellesley, Town of (SPR 20213363)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 10, 2022 SPR21/3363 Cynthia Mahr Records Access Officer Town of Wellesley 525 Washington Street Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Ms. Mahr: I have received the petition of Framingham Reporter appealing the response of the Town of Wellesley (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 17, 2021, Framingham Reporter requested: [1] All records provided to [a named individual] in response to [a certain] public records request[;] [2] All communications between [a named individual] and any entity, employee, or elected representative of [the Town] since January 1, 2018, including but not limited to communications regarding [a named individual, and;] [3] Any and all other public records requests, responsive records, and communications made by or provided to [a named individual] since January 1, 2018. The Town provided a response on December 8, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Framingham Reporter petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/3363, 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 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

Cynthia Mahr SPR21/3363 Page 2 January 10, 2022 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). The Town’s December 8th Response On December 8, 2021, the Town asserted, “as required by the Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, § 10(b), the Town issued a 10-day response letter on December 2, 2021. The Town produced hundreds of pages of documentation. Additionally, on December 2, 2021, the [Town] petitioned the Supervisor of Public Records for the ability to charge fees to segregate and redact approximately 347 responsive records…You received a copy of the Petition on December 2, 2021.” Current Appeal In its December 29, 2021 appeal, Framingham Reporter stated, “I am appealing the [Town’s] fee estimate…as untimely…As you can see, the Town did not respond until 5 days after the 10 business day deadline [of December 3, 2021].” In light of the Town’s December 2nd response, the basis of Framingham Reporter’s appeal is unclear. Conclusion Framingham Reporter 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). Framingham Reporter may wish to clarify this matter and their objections to the Town’s response. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Framingham Reporter