Eunki Seonwoo v. Steamship Authority (SPR 20243319)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2024 SPR24/3319 Terence Kenneally, Esq. General Counsel and Records Access Officer Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, MA 02540 Dear Attorney Kenneally: I have received the petition of Eunki Seonwoo, of Martha’s Vineyard Times, appealing the response of the Nantucket Steamship Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 12, 2024, Mr. Seonwoo requested, “...Steamship Authority Board’s June 20, July 16, Sept. 17, and October 15 executive session minutes.” The Authority responded on November 26, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Seonwoo petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3319, 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 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 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

Terence Kenneally, Esq. SPR24/3319 Page 2 December 23, 2024 custodian must provide the responsive records. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Seonwood states, “[w]e, the Martha’s Vineyard Times, are appealing the Steamship Authority’s decision to redact their executive session minutes regarding contract negotiations with [an identified individual].” The Authority’s November 26th Response In its November 26, 2024 response, the Authority responded stated, “[w]e approve your request in part and deny your request in part. We are providing you with copies of the requested minutes but redacting those portions of the minutes that should not be released to the public. The excepted portions of the executive session minutes reflect the Members’ discussions and actions about the following matters:” [1] Pending or anticipated collective bargaining negotiations; [2] Pending or anticipated contract negotiations with non-union personnel; [3] Information protected from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, Mass. G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26th, and now explicitly under the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act, Mass. G.L. c. 30A, § 22(e) as well; and [4] Discussions protected by the attorney-client privilege. In its response, the Authority further asserted “[t]he requested executive session minutes address the above subject matters and the minutes addressing those matters have been redacted to prevent their release to the public. Public disclosure of information with respect to these matters would compromise the purposes for which the executive session was being called. We are also withholding portions of the executive session minutes by relying upon Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law as detailed below.” G. L. c. 30A, § 22 provides in pertinent part as follows: if an executive session is held pursuant to clause (2) or (3) of subsections (a) of section 21, then the minutes, preparatory materials and documents and exhibits used at the session may be withheld from disclosure to the public in their entirety, unless and until such time as a litigating, negotiating or bargaining position is no longer jeopardized by such disclosure, at which time they shall be disclosed unless the attorney-client privilege or 1 or more of the exemptions under said clause Twenty-sixth of said section 7 of said chapter 4 apply to withhold these records, or any portion thereof, from disclosure. G. L. c. 30A, § 22.

Terence Kenneally, Esq. SPR24/3319 Page 3 December 23, 2024 Open Meeting Law The nature of Mr. Seonwoo’s request and the response that was provided to him raise issues that invoke the Open Meeting Law. An interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office. Consequently, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that the parties contact the Attorney General’s Office if they seek a determination on this issue. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Eunki Seonwoo