← Back to Search
Walt Thompson v. Newburyport, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20241950)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 07-09-2024
ClosedAppealResolved
SPR 20241950 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Walt Thompson concerning records held by Newburyport, City of - Office of the City Clerk, opened 07-09-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20241950
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Walt Thompson
- Date Opened
- 07-09-2024
- Date Closed
- 07-23-2024
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 July 23, 2024 SPR24/1950 Richard Jones City Clerk 60 Pleasant Street P. O. Box 550 Newburyport, MA 09150 Dear Mr. Jones I have received the petition of Walt Thompson appealing the response of the City of Newburyport (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 24, 2024, Mr. Thompson requested, “... a copy of the City Administration’s timeline” which was referred to “during the open public meeting of the June 24, 2022.” Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/1858 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 8, 2024). In my July 8th determination, I learned the City provided a further response on July 8, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Thompson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1950, 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 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 Richard Jones SPR24/1950 Page 2 July 23, 2024 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 City’s July 5th response In its July 5, 2024 response, the City asserted, “… the ‘timeline’ record that the requestor is seeking is a document that was part of an executive session. Generally all information, conversations and documentation that are part of an executive session are ‘confidential and privileged’ and not subject to a records request until such time as the need for confidentiality no longer exists. See G.L. c. 30A s. 21.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Thompson stated: It is my understanding anything brought up in public meeting … as in last evening re City administration’s timeline … was available to the public through MA public meeting law…. The… chronology documentation I requested CAN be supplied with the “Executive Session” related personnel matters deleted…. Further, such chronology from the [City] was exhibited in a public meeting June 24, 2024…. Open Meeting Law The City’s July 8th response raises issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law (OML). See G. L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(1). Given that the record withheld is based on the Open Meeting Law, and an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. Consequently, I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination concerning the Open Meeting Law issues. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Richard Jones SPR24/1950 Page 3 July 23, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Walt Thompson