Owen and Becky Neville v. Boxborough, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20230425)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2023 SPR23/0425 Rebecca J. Harris, Ph.D. Town Clerk Town of Boxborough 29 Middle Road Boxborough, MA 01719 Dear Dr. Harris: I have received the petition of Becky Neville appealing the response of the Town of Boxborough (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 20, 2023, Ms. Neville requested the minutes where the Town Select Board voted on a specific investigation. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/0205 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 16, 2023). The Town provided a response on March 3, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Neville petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/0425, 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(d)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see 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

Rebecca J. Harris, Ph.D. SPR23/0425 Page 2 March 17, 2023 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). The Town’s March 3rd response In its March 3, 2023 response, the Town stated that “[t]he Select Board met on 3/1/2023 to discuss the minutes from a July 7, 2022 Executive Session, and voted to release these minutes with redactions based on exemption (f) and collective bargaining. These redacted minutes are attached.” Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-290. The Town’s March 3rd response did not provide supporting information on how the investigative process is ongoing, nor does it describe how the redacted information in the requested records are part of the investigation. It is additionally uncertain how disclosure of the redacted portions “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest” as required by Exemption (f). See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Consequently, I find that the Town has not met its burden of specificity to redact the responsive records under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law.

Rebecca J. Harris, Ph.D. SPR23/0425 Page 3 March 17, 2023 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Neville with a response to the request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Neville may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Becky Neville