George H. Harris v. Wayland, Town of (SPR 20221252)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 14, 2022 SPR22/1252 Stephen Crane Town of Wayland 41 Cochituate Road Wayland, MA 01778 Dear Mr. Crane: I have received the petition of George Harris, Esq. appealing the response of the Town of Wayland (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 2, 2022, Attorney Harris requested “. . . unredacted copies of the following Select Board executive session minutes pertaining to the lawsuit known as Duane Galbi v. Town of Wayland, now resolved: Meetings held on October 28, 2019; September 21, 2020; February 1, 2021; July 26, 2021; October 4, 2021; December 13, 2021.” On May 6, 2022, the Town provided a response denying access to the responsive records. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Attorney Harris petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1252, 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 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. 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 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

Stephen Crane SPR22/1252 Page 2 June 14, 2022 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s May 6th response In its May 6, 2022 response, the Town explains, “. . . the redactions are protected by MGL Chapter 30A Section 21(a)(3) as was declared by the Chair at the time of the meeting. The Board has not voted to release unredacted minutes.” Open Meeting Law The nature of Attorney Harris’ 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 decline 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: George Harris, Esq.