Paul Waple v. Swansea, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20250162)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 30, 2025 SPR25/0162 Mallory E. Aronstein Town Administrator Town of Swansea 81 Main Street Swansea, MA 02777 Dear Ms. Aronstein: I have received the petition of Paul Waple appealing the response of the Town of Swansea (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 18, 2024, Mr. Waple requested the following in pdf format: [1.] A list of all town employees [2.] A copy of each town employee’s signed political activities form Prior appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/2848 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 29, 2024) and SPR24/3400 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 3, 2025). In my January 3rd determination, it was must understanding that the Town provided a further response on January 2, 2025, including records. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Waple petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0162, 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 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

Mallory E. Aronstein SPR25/0162 Page 2 January 3, 2025 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s Responses In a prior response on December 2, 2024, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact signatures from the political activities form. In its response on December 20, 2024, the Town provided records and stated, “[t]here are remnants of the signatures left as agreed upon by the requestor. You can tell in most of them who the signer is and their position. The Town has offered to create a document, which is not a requirement of the Public Records Law, to further assist the requestor… We are also not required to order employees to refill out forms based upon the wishes of a public records requestor. We are not required to recreate documents to suit a requestor’s preferences.” In its January 2, 2025 response, the Town provided a record of a list of Town employees. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Waple states the following: I am further appealing the response of the Town of Swansea and their continued refusal to provide documents. I am asking that in accordance with my original request from September 18, 2024, that the town please provide signed copies of the policy, in the original format, as approved by the Board of Selectmen, from each of the town employees. As stated in previous communications with the town, I am ok with a portion of the signature being redacted as agreed upon, however I am asking that the printed employee name, title and the date of signature remain visible. If the employee signed on the printed name line, either the signature on that line should remain visible or the employee be required to properly fill out the document and resubmit it. Burden of specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co.

Mallory E. Aronstein SPR25/0162 Page 3 January 3, 2025 v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Town did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear what exemption under the Public Records Law the Town is claiming to withhold “printed employee name, title and the date of signature” of the requested records from disclosure. It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold or redact a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3). Consequently, I find the Town must identify an exemption and explain with specificity how the exemption applies to redact the records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Waple with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Waple