← Back to Search
Gerard F. Mackin, Jr. v. Weymouth, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20221841)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency must provide records · Filed 08-23-2022
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20221841 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Gerard F. Mackin, Jr. concerning records held by Weymouth, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 08-23-2022. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency must provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20221841
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Recon
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Gerard F. Mackin, Jr.
- Custodian
- Weymouth, Town of - Town Clerk
- Date Opened
- 08-23-2022
- Date Closed
- 09-13-2022
- Date Request Submitted
- 07-29-2022
- Response Provided Date
- 08-09-2022
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Recon Opened
- 08-23-2022
- Recon Closed
- 09-13-2022
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 22, 2022 SPR22/1841 Kathleen Deree Town Clerk Town of Weymouth 75 Middle Street Weymouth, MA 02189 Dear Ms. Deree, I have received the petition of Gerard Mackin appealing the response of the Town of Weymouth (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 9, 2022, Mr. Mackin requested with regard to 450 Green Street the following: [1] The RAO has grouped seven … related but certainly not identical requests… Objection: the grouping interferes with a proper determination and so should be prohibited. [2] The response includes my request outlining the manner for production by the RAO of responsive documents. The suggestion is based upon my previous attempts to receive documents which … were included in my current request but those responses did not include any documents. The attached request has limited my requests to time periods which will facilitate transmission of documents via email. [3] The prior determinations relied on the offer of the portal which I could not access … I have seen the portal which is closed and therefore I cannot access the documents. The documents cannot be forwarded by email … for an appeal. Since I can read the requests of others on the portal, those strangers can read my requests and therefore my privacy has been violated by disclosing my requests to the public. [4] The RAO seems to suggest that I cannot renew a request for public documents. The Town responded on August 9, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Mackin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1841, was opened as a result. 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 Kathleen Deree SPR22/1841 Page 2 August 22, 2022 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. In his appeal, Mr. Mackin asserts, “I ask for a determination that (a) My prior requests do not bar the attached request (b) The RAO must respond to individual requests in separate responses (c) The RAO may not alter a request. (d) I am not required to use the portal (e) the RAO may not post my requests on the portal. (e) Any claims of privilege must provide the foundation required by MGL c 66 sections 10 and 10A.” In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Mackin in his appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Gerard Mackin Marsha Geronaitis