David Groh v. Norwood, Town of (SPR 20250463)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 27, 2025 SPR25/0463; SPR25/0465; SPR25/0466 Christine M. Woodward Executive Assistant Board of Selectmen Town of Norwood 566 Washington Street Norwood, MA 02062 Dear Ms. Woodward: I have received the petitions of David Groh appealing the response of the Town of Norwood (Town) to three requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 20, 2024, Mr. Groh sought the following: SPR25/0463 … a copy of the executive meeting minutes as mentioned in the 5/24/2022 selectmen’s meeting agenda; Purpose 3 - To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the public body and the chair so declares. Collective Bargaining: AFSCEM, AFL-CIO, State Council #93. SPR25/0465 … a copy of the executive meeting minutes as mentioned in the selectmen’s 10/11/2022 meeting agenda: Property Acquisition Purpose 6. To consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property if the chair declares that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body; 1271 Washington Street 1281 Washington Street 1297 Washington Street. SPR25/0466 … a copy of the executive meeting minutes as mentioned in the 10/25/22 Selectmen’s meeting agenda: Purpose 6. Property Acquisition Purpose 6. To 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

Christine M. Woodward SPR25/0463; SPR25/0465; SPR25/0466 Page 2 February 27, 2025 consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property if the chair declares that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body. The Town provided responses on December 3, 2024 and January 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Groh petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/0463, SPR25/0465, and SPR25/0466, were opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Town provided a supplemental response on February 19, 2025. 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s December 3rd and January 7th Responses In its December 3, 2024 response, the Town informed Mr. Groh that “[t]he minutes are under review by Town Counsel and the Board has not approved them for release.” In its January 7, 2025 response, the Town further stated that the requested records “… have not been approved for release.” Current Appeal In his February 18, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Groh objected to the Town’s responses as out of compliance with the Public Records Law. In a February 19, 2025 email communication to this office, the Town stated: In accordance with the provisions of the Open Meeting Law, MGL c. 30A, et.

Christine M. Woodward SPR25/0463; SPR25/0465; SPR25/0466 Page 3 February 27, 2025 seq. the draft minutes of the requested meetings will be reviewed to determine whether the matters noted therein have been resolved and/or whether the executive session privilege has otherwise been extinguished. Further the draft minutes must be reviewed and approved and examined for release in compliance with the Public Records Law and applicable exemptions. See MGL c. 4, s.7(26) Open Meeting Law The nature of Mr. Groh’s request and the Town’s responses 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 this issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider these administrative appeals closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Groh David A. DeLuca, Esq.