Jeremy L. Ethier v. Ashby, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20222488)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 16, 2022 SPR22/2488 Angela Jack Records Access Officer Town of Ashby Office of the Town Clerk 893 Main Street Ashby, MA 01431 Dear Ms. Jack: I have received the petition of Jeremy L. Ethier, Sr. appealing the response of the Town of Ashby (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 22, 2022, Mr. Ethier requested, “… any and all information, the Board of Health, Fire Department and Water inspector has for the past six months pertaining to [named location].” The Town responded on November 1, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Ethier petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2488, 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. 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

Angela Jack SPR22/2488 Page 2 November 16, 2022 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 Town’s November 1st Response In its November 1, 2022 response, the Town stated, “[i]t has been determined that your request is overly broad and I ask that you provide further details about what documents you are seeking.” Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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. Dep’t 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. Based on the foregoing, I find it is unclear which specific records Mr. Ethier is requesting from the Town. Mr. Ethier may wish to clarify his request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. I encourage Mr. Ethier and the Town to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. The Town must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeremy L. Ethier, Sr.