MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Steven Sadler v. Georgetown, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20232015)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 08-25-2023

ClosedAppealResolved

SPR 20232015 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Steven Sadler concerning records held by Georgetown, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 08-25-2023. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.

Case Details

Case Number
20232015
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Steven Sadler
Custodian
Georgetown, Town of - Town Clerk
Date Opened
08-25-2023
Date Closed
09-11-2023

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William FrancisGalvin,Secretary oftheCommonwealth PublicRecords Division ManzaArthur SupervisorofRecords September11,2023 SPR23/2015 Kerri McManus TownClerk TownofGeorgetown 1Library Street Georgetown,MA01833 DearMs. McManus: Ihave receivedthepetition of StevenSadlerappealing theresponses oftheTownof Georgetown(Town) to arequest for public records.SeeG.L.c. 66,§10A; seealso 950C.M.R. 32.08(1).On August6,2023,Mr. Sadlerrequested“copiesof all contractsthe town hasentered intowith the[STIRM Group] for theperiod:2023.” OnAugust7,2023,the Townresponded. On August 17,2023,Mr.Sadlerasked “[w]hat wasthespecific lawor federalgrant-in-aid requirementthat necessitatedconfidentialityin thiscase?”On August25,2023,theTown responded to thisAugust 17thquestion. Unsatisfied withthe Town’s responses, Mr.Sadler petitioned thisofficeand thisappeal, SPR23/2015, wasopened asa result. The PublicRecords Law ThePublic RecordsLaw strongly favors disclosurebycreatinga presumption that all governmental recordsare public records.G.L.c. 66,§10A(d); 950C.M.R.32.03(4).“Public records”is broadly definedto includeall documentary materialsor data,regardlessof physical formorcharacteristics, made orreceived byanyofficer oremployee ofanyagency or municipalityof theCommonwealth, unless fallingwithin astatutory exemption.G. L.c.4,§ 7(26). Itisthe burdenof therecordscustodianto demonstrate theapplicationof anexemptionin order to withholdarequested record.G.L.c. 66,§10(b)(iv);950C.M.R. 32.06(3);see alsoDist. Att’yforthe NorfolkDist. v.Flatley,419Mass.507,511(1995)(custodian hastheburden of establishingthe applicability ofanexemption).To meetthespecificity requirementacustodian mustnot only citean exemption,butmust alsostatewhy theexemptionappliesto thewithheld orredacted portionof theresponsive record. Ifthere are anyfees associated witha response awritten,goodfaithestimate mustbe One AshburtonPlace,Room 1719,Boston,Massachusetts 02108•(617) 727-2832• Fax: (617)727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre•pre@sec.state.ma.us

Kerri McManus SPR23/2015 Page2 September11,2023 provided.G.L. c.66,§10(b)(viii);see also950C.M.R.32.07(2). Once fees are paid,arecords custodianmustprovide theresponsive records. The Town’s August7thandAugust 25thResponses InitsAugust 7,2023response,the Townstates: [Itis] not ableto release executivesession materialsfrom theBoarduntil the matteris resolved. Todoso would bea violationoftheConflict of InterestLaw, MGL26A…. Confidential information.Improperly disclosingorpersonally using confidential informationobtainedthroughyour jobis prohibited.(See Section 23(c)) Municipal employeesmay notimproperly discloseconfidentialinformation, or makepersonal useof non-publicinformationtheyacquiredin thecourse oftheir officialduties to furthertheirpersonal interests. InitsAugust 25,2023response,the Townstates: We cannot [sic] releaseexecutivesession materials untilthe matteris resolvedat whichtime theBoardcan release all information.This isalsoconsistent with my previousresponse regardingyourrequest repeated [sic]to executive session materials.Arelease ofthese materialsbythose involved would be aviolation of theconflictof interestlawsMGLChapter 268A[.] Inasupplemental August 25,2023response, theTownstates,“[t]heprovision ofgoing intoexecutivesession are clearandthat levelof detailed[sic] is notrequired.Again there isa timewhen all that informationmust bemade public whenthematter isresolved.” OpenMeeting Law ItappearsMr.Sadler’s appeal is relatedto thereleaseof materialsusedin an executive session, whichwould raise issues underthe OpenMeetingLaw. SeeG. L.c.30A,§22(f). The authorityto opineonOpenMeeting Lawmatters,including documents pertainingto executive session meetings,restswith theOpen Government Divisionofthe OfficeoftheAttorney General(AGO). SeeG.L.c. 30A,§23.Therefore,Idecline to opineontherequest pertainingto theexecutivesession meetings.Iadvise thepartiesto consult with theAGO regardingthe recordspertaining tothe sessions. Accordingly, Iwillnow consider thisadministrative appeal closed.

Kerri McManus SPR23/2015 Page3 September11,2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur SupervisorofRecords cc: StevenSadler