Anonymous Requestor v. Lancaster, Town of (SPR 20241218)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 7, 2024 SPR24/1218 Kathleen Rocco Town Clerk Town of Lancaster 701 Main Street, Suite 1 Lancaster, MA 01523 Dear Ms. Rocco: I have received the petition of Anonymous Requestor (requestor) appealing the response of the Town of Lancaster (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 3, 2024, the requestor sought, “…a copy of all the notices sent about this investigation to members of the Fire offices, all meeting minutes including executive session minutes where the Fire Chief is discussed. I am also asking for a copy of the report…” On April 8, 2024, the Town provided a response. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, the requestor petitioned the Supervisor of Records, and this appeal, SPR24/1218, 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. See 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

Kathleen Rocco SPR24/1218 Page 2 May 7, 2024 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 April 8th Response On April 8, 2024, the Town withheld responsive records citing a legal proceeding, Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, and G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f) regarding executive session materials. The Town stated, “…the circumstances surrounding the matter are legal in nature and may be used, or the subject of, other legal proceedings.” Open Meeting Law In citing G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f) the Town stated, “ [t]he records are also further exempt through M.G.L. c. 30A, s. 22(f), as any record responsive to the request would most certainly include personnel information and confidential investigatory witness statements which the appointing authority used to make employment decisions.” The Town also stated, “[i]n response to your request for meeting minutes, M.G.L. c. 30A, s. 22(f) protects Executive Session materials…the report and notification materials were used during the Select Board’s February and March 2024 Executive Sessions, the publication of said materials outside of any Executive Session would negate the lawful purpose of the Select Board holding the Sessions. Executive Session minutes under Purpose 1, as they relate to a specific individual, are exempt from disclosure in perpetuity because the individual’s privacy interest does not end, even if their employment with the Town ends. At this time, there are no open session records or minutes responsive to your request and, therefore, nothing may be produced.…” In the appeal the requestor noted, “I do see there are no minutes in public session about the matter so that is answered.” The Town’s response and the requestor’s appeal regarding the meeting minutes raise issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. If unresolved issues remain, I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes and other documents in question. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Kathleen Rocco SPR24/1218 Page 3 May 7, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anonymous Requestor