Craig Metz v. Blackstone, Town of (SPR 20250592)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 13, 2025 SPR25/0592 Chad Lovett Town Administrator Town of Blackstone 15 St. Paul Street Blackstone, MA 01504 Dear Mr. Lovett: I have received the petition of Craig Metz appealing the response of the Town of Blackstone (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 10, 2025, Mr. Metz requested, “copies of all electronic sewer bills for the property located at [a specified location in] Blackstone, Massachusetts from March 1, 2011, to the present date.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0311 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 12, 2025). In my February 12th determination, I found it unclear whether the records of the Town’s agents were searched and ordered the Town to demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The Town responded on February 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Metz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0592, 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. 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

Chad Lovett SPR25/0592 Page 2 March 13, 2025 Att’y 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 February 26th Response In its February 26, 2025 response, the Town provided records responsive to Mr. Metz’s request and states: Following the determination letter’s suggestion, I contacted the Records Management Unit to confirm the retention schedule for the requested records and ensure compliance with retention regulations. According to the RMU’s emails, the Town is not required to retain these bills, as they are classified as administrative use records. Nonetheless, in an effort to fulfill Mr. Metz’s request, I asked the Town of Blackstone’s Collector/Treasurer to make another attempt to locate the requested records. The Collector/Treasurer has since obtained additional documents from Kelly & Ryan, the Town’s bill processor, which are attached. Additionally, three relevant bills are available on UniPay’s website . . . and I have included them as attachments to this message. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Metz states: Despite providing a supplemental response dated February 26, 2025 and including email correspondence with the RMU dated February 25, 2025, the Town continues to evade its responsibilities under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The Town’s actions reveal a pattern of non-compliance, a lack of transparency, and a disregard for the principles of open government… The Town initially claimed the requested sewer invoices ‘do not exist,’ only to later produce ‘additional documents.’ This blatant contradiction demonstrates a lack of due diligence and raises serious questions about the accuracy of their initial claims…. It remains unclear whether all requested documents have been provided. In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the Town on March 12, 2025, the Town confirmed that it provided all records responsive to the request.

Chad Lovett SPR25/0592 Page 3 March 13, 2025 Conclusion Where the Town confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Metz’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Metz is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Craig Metz