Walter Tuvell v. Reading, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20220160)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 31, 2022 SPR22/0160 Laura Gemme Town Clerk Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Ms. Gemme: I have received the petition of Walter Tuvell appealing the response of the Town of Reading (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2022, Mr. Tuvell requested, “a copy of all records/documents that evidence [me] ‘going after [a certain individual],’ as well as any (reasonably closely) related communications.” The Town provided a response on January 24, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Tuvell petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0160, 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. The Town’s January 24th Response On January 24, 2022, the Town stated, “your request does not ‘reasonably describe’ 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

Laura Gemme SPR22/0160 Page 2 January 31, 2022 records sought…You have requested ‘evidence’ of a certain event or occurrence happening, as opposed to a discrete record. Furthermore, you seek records that are ‘related’ to a specific statement made during a meeting. Principally, your request calls for a non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret what constitutes sufficient evidence that an event occurred and what may or may not be sufficiently related to a matter in order to respond.” Current Appeal In his current appeal, Mr. Tuvell contends the Town’s response “is in bad faith. For, the two transcripts attached hereto clearly ‘reasonable describe’ [a named individual] referring to some kind of documentary (‘record’) proof of his assertion of ‘going after,’ and that [the named individual] obviously ‘reasonably describes’ (and knows, and possesses) what that documentary proof is.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought A public records request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Conclusion Based on the forgoing, I find it is unclear what specific records Mr. Tuvell is requesting. Mr. Tuvell may wish to modify or clarify his request to the Town in order to provide the sufficient particularity needed in order to search the Town’s records. For example, he may wish to provide the Town with clear search terms and types of records he is looking for, such as communications, emails, or text messages. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Tuvell wishes to submit another public records request and is unsatisfied with the response, he may appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Walter Tuvell