Mary Dormer v. Carver, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20220027)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 20, 2022 SPR22/0027 Cara L. Dahill Town Clerk Carver Town Hall 108 Main Street Carver, MA 02330 Dear Ms. Dahill: I have received the petition of Mary Dormer appealing the response of the Town of Carver (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 10, 2021, Ms. Dormer requested, “…all emails between [named persons] … and the Select Board or any other interested person. The subject matter of these emails discusses [named persons] … between September and November of 2021 …” On December 28, 2021, the Town responded. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Dormer petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0027, 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); 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

Cara L. Dahill SPR22/0027 Page 2 January 20, 2022 The Town’s December 28, 2021 Response In its December 28th response, the Town produced redacted emails and cited the Attorney-Client Privilege and Open Meeting Law and stated “… a summary of the communications being withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, as well as executive session material under G.L. c. 30A, §21, are specified in the enclosed log.” Open Meeting Law Given that this appeal is related to an executive session, this raises issues that potentially invoke the Open Meeting Law. Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) and not this office, I decline to provide a determination at this time. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that you contact the AGO should you seek determination on this issue. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Mary Dormer