Christopher P. Loreti v. Arlington, Town of - Clerk's Office (SPR 20230546)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 29, 2023 SPR23/0546 Douglas W. Heim, Esq. Town Counsel Town of Arlington 730 Massachusetts Avenue Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Attorney Heim: I have received the petition of Christopher Loreti appealing the response of the Town of Arlington (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 8, 2023, Mr. Loreti requested: For the period of 7-1-2022 to present… [1] All agendas for the Town Manager Screening Committee formed to fill the current vacancy[;] [2] All minutes for the same committee[;] [3] The job announcement (candidate solicitation) for this vacancy[;] [4] The interview questions posed by the screening committee to the Town Manager candidates[.] On March 21, 2023, the Town responded. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Loreti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/0546, 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. 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

Douglas W. Heim, Esq. SPR23/0546 Page 2 March 29, 2023 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 Town’s March 21st Response In its March 21, 2023 response, the Town provided the “Public Session Minutes of Town Manager Screen Committee Meetings, dated January 18, 2023, February 2, 2023, February 7, 2023, February 23, 2023, and March 16, 2023, including Town Manager Interview Guide (which has been redacted…)” and the “Town Manager Job Profile.” The Town stated it was withholding the “[e]xecutive session minutes of the Town Manager Screening Committee (which have not been approved for release) including candidate applications and resumes” pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c). Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Loreti states, “the town failed to provide the interview questions I requested effectively redacting the entire substance of the document containing them. The town also failed to provide the resume of the finalist the screening committee selected for the position.” In a response provided by the Town on March 22, 2023, the Town provided Mr. Loreti with a copy of the finalist’s resume. In a further response provided by the Town on March 24, 2023, the Town states: Having been advised by the Division of Open Government that approval of the Interview Questions at issue in Open Session, even where the same questions are used in executive session (or potential future executive sessions) renders the document in question a public record without exemption from their perspective, the Town hereby provides an unredacted copy of such document. In a response dated March 24, 2023, Mr. Loreti states, “[s]ince [the Town] has provided an unredacted version of the document at issue in my appeal, that appeal is now moot. From my perspective, there is no need for your office to pursue it further.” In light of the Town’s March 22 and March 24, 2023 responses and Mr. Loreti’s March 24, 2023 correspondence, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed.

Douglas W. Heim, Esq. SPR23/0546 Page 3 March 29, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Loreti