← Back to Search
Deborah S. Skauen-Hinchliffe v. Harvard, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20251548)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 06-02-2025
ClosedAppealResolved
SPR 20251548 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Deborah S. Skauen-Hinchliffe concerning records held by Harvard, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 06-02-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20251548
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Deborah S. Skauen-Hinchliffe
- Custodian
- Harvard, Town of - Town Clerk
- Date Opened
- 06-02-2025
- Date Closed
- 06-13-2025
- Date Request Submitted
- 05-05-2025
- Response Provided Date
- 05-08-2025
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 13, 2025 SPR25/1548 Rose M. Miranda Town Clerk Town of Harvard 13 Ayer Road Harvard, MA 01451 Dear Ms. Miranda: I have received the petition of Deborah Skauen-Hinchcliffe appealing the response of the Town of Harvard (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 5, 2025, Ms. Skauen-Hinchcliffe requested, “the minutes of the April 3, 2025 Harvard Conservation Commission’s executive session.” The Town responded on May 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Skauen-Hinchcliffe petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1548, 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 custodian must provide the responsive 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 Rose M. Miranda SPR25/1548 Page 2 June 13, 2025 The Town’s May 12th Response In its May 12, 2025 response, a representative of the Town advised as follows: At the May 8, 2025 meeting that Harvard Conservation Commission [sic] the members present determined the publication of the Executive Session Minutes from April 3, 2025 would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive session and the continued nondisclosure of the executive session minutes is warranted. On April 3, 2025 the Harvard Conservation Commission entered into Executive Session pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21(a)(6) to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property because a public discussion of this matter could have detrimental effects on the negotiating position, only to return to the open session of the public meeting. Current Appeal In her June 2, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Skauen-Hinchcliffe contends that “[t]he reasons for the secret session do not comply with any of ten reasons that permit an executive session[.]” She additionally asserts, “[n]o exemption exists that permits entering into an executive session to discuss whether or not to pursue a grant. . . . Only when negotiating for specific property, executive session is permitted. This condition is not met.” Open Meeting Law The nature of Ms. Skauen-Hinchcliffe’s request and the Town’s May 12th response raise issues related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). 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. I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Deborah Skauen-Hinchcliffe Liz Allard