Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20250870)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2025 SPR25/0870 Jennifer Leger City Clerk City of Taunton 15 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Ms. Leger: I have received the petition of Emma Rindlisbacher appealing the response of the City of Taunton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 17, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested: [1] Any communications between board of health + true diversity / true collective / together summer camp[;] [2] Any board of health records regarding the together summer camp[.] On March 31, 2025, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0870, 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. 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. 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

Jennifer Leger SPR25/0870 Page 2 April 2, 2025 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 March 31st Response In its March 31, 2025 response, the City informed Ms. Rindlisbacher that it would require 15 additional business days to respond to the request. Current Appeal In her March 31, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rindlisbacher stated, “[t]he Massachusetts public records law requires a response within ten business days and I have not received a response in this timeframe.” Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of Ms. Rindlisbacher’s appeal. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein). Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Ms. Rindlisbacher in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Ms. Rindlisbacher receives the response she may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher