MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Diane DiTullio Agostino v. Milton, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20240248)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 01-26-2024

ClosedAppealResolved

SPR 20240248 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Diane DiTullio Agostino concerning records held by Milton, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 01-26-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.

Case Details

Case Number
20240248
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Diane DiTullio Agostino
Custodian
Milton, Town of - Town Clerk
Date Opened
01-26-2024
Date Closed
02-07-2024

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 February 7, 2024 SPR24/0248 Susan M. Galvin Town Clerk Town of Milton 525 Canton Avenue Milton, MA 02186 Dear Ms. Galvin: I have received the petition of Diane DiTullio Agostino appealing the response of the Town of Milton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 19, 2023, Ms. Agostino requested: [1.] All the 2022 and 2023 Annual Town Election ‘Contact Information’ Forms or [2.] An electronic version of these forms/excel sheet created with the information from these forms. The Town provided a response on November 17, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Agostino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0248, 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 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

Susan M. Galvin SPR24/0248 Page 2 February 7, 2024 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. The Town’s November 17th response In its November 17, 2023 response, the Town cites Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law to redact the requested records. Exemption (o) Exemption (o) applies to: the home address, personal email address and home telephone number of an employee of the judicial branch, an unelected employee of the general court, an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of a political subdivision thereof or of an authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter l 50E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o). Under Exemption (o), the Town states the following: Please note that the town meeting member emails and telephone numbers have been redacted for the following reasons. Pursuant to ‘Exemption O’ of the Public Records Law, which prevents personal email disclosure of an employee… Additionally, town meeting members have not provided any permission to the Town to share this information. Based on the Town’s response, I find that the Town has met its burden to redact town meeting member emails and telephone numbers from the responsive records under Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Where the Town has met its burden to redact the requested records under Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Agostino is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, she is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66 § 10(A)(c).

Susan M. Galvin SPR24/0248 Page 3 February 7, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Diane DiTullio Agostino