Julie Gentile v. South Hadley, Town of - Fire District (SPR 20221135)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 26, 2022 SPR22/1135 Terie B. Fleury Clerk/Treasurer South Hadley Fire District No. 1 144 Newton Street South Hadley, MA 01075 Dear Ms. Fleury: I have received the petition of Julie Gentile appealing the response of South Hadley Fire District No. 1 (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 26, 2022, Ms. Gentile requested: [T]he following records and recordings: South Hadley Fire District No.1 Prudential Committee Meeting Minutes May 26, 2021 South Hadley Fire District No.1 Prudential Committee Meeting Minutes June 29, 2021 South Hadley Fire District No.1 Prudential Committee Meeting Minutes August 31, 2021 (The agenda is where the minutes should be on the website) South Hadley Fire District No.1 Prudential Committee Meeting Minutes October 14, 2021 South Hadley Fire District No.1 Prudential Committee Meeting Minutes December 7, 2021. The District responded on May 10, 2022, providing links to two websites, requesting clarification, and providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Gentile appealed, and this case 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 agency or 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

Terie B. Fleury SPR22/1135 Page 2 May 26, 2022 municipality 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. Att’y 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. The District’s May 10th Response In its May 10, 2022 response, the District provides links to two websites. The District also asks Ms. Gentile to “please add clarification, of exactly what you mean by ‘records and recordings.’” The District also provides a fee estimate of $25.00. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Ms. Gentile is advised that a 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). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id. In her appeal petition, Ms. Gentile states that “I had also asked for recordings of the meetings, as at every meeting it is encouraged that we residents review the recordings for accuracy of information and I never received that either.” Based on her original request to the District, I find it is unclear which specific records Ms. Gentile was seeking. Ms. Gentile may wish to modify or clarify her request to the District in order to provide the sufficient particularity needed in order to search the District’s records. Specifically, she may wish to clarify whether she is seeking only the written minutes, or audio recordings, or visual recordings.

Terie B. Fleury SPR22/1135 Page 3 May 26, 2022 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Gentile wishes to submit another public records request to the District, and is unsatisfied with the response, she may appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Julie Gentile