Kevin Wood v. Georgetown, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20251683)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 25, 2025 SPR25/1683 Kerri Ann McManus Town Clerk Town of Georgetown 1 Library Street Georgetown, MA 01833 Dear Ms. McManus: I have received the petition of Kevin Wood appealing the response of the Town of Georgetown (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 10, 2025, Mr. Wood requested: [1] Approved Stirm Group report and attachments mentioned in the 06/09/25 BoS meeting agenda. [2] Executive session meeting minutes where Stirm Group and/or alleged Conservation Commission payroll fraud are mentioned. [Please note draft minutes have been determined “public” records by the Secretary of State Record Supervisor and must be provided.] [3] All draft reports provided by Stirm Group. [4] All invoices and payments regarding Stirm Group. [4] [sic] Correspondence with or between the Town and Office of Inspector General, Attorney General, Essex County District Attorney regarding Stirm Group including any records which mention or coach the Town on these executive sessions’ agenda purpose. The Town responded on June 10, 2025 and June 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Wood petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1683, was opened as a result. 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

Kerri Ann McManus SPR25/1683 Page 2 June 25, 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 June 10th and June 11th Responses In its June 10, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[w]e are working on a response to have to you no later than June 25, 2025. I will reach out to you with a Good Faith estimate, if applicable.” On June 11, 2025, the Town provided responsive records via email attachments and responded in turn to each item of the request as follows: [1] Please see attachment labeled STIRM Report Final w BOS response. [2] Per [an identified individual], “The Board will be releasing the executive session minutes after they are approved at the next meeting.” [3] I am not sure there were draft reports. I sent [an identified individual] a follow up email to answer this part, but he left for vacation today. If we have records responsive, I will send when he gets back. [4] Please see attachment labeled 09012023_DATE. We paid 4 invoices to the Stirm Group. [4] [sic] [An identified individual] has stated “We do not have direct communication with the Attorney General’s Office or the District Attorney’s Office.”

Kerri Ann McManus SPR25/1683 Page 3 June 25, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Wood cites the Open Meeting Law and states: This is an appeal of Georgetown’s denial to produce draft executive session meeting minutes relative to the “Stirm Group.” The Stirm Group was retained in June 2023 and their work was approved on June 9, 2025. The purpose of the executive sessions has been served. The Town has agreed to release these minutes, but only after they are approved by the Board of Selectmen. By necessity, the draft minutes will require revision… The several Stirm Group executive sessions span a time frame from approximately June 2023 to May 2025. All of these minutes are in draft form. None were approved contemporaneous with the actual meeting. In fact, it appears some draft minutes were not even created in the same time period as the meetings. To my knowledge no recordings of these meetings exist. Since June 2023 the Board of Selectmen composition has changed. Two of the five original members have been replaced. Forty percent of the board’s historic knowledge is gone. The Town has purposefully slow walked the Stirm Group issue as evidenced by the two years which have elapsed since Stirm Group completed their work… [T]hese draft minutes must be preserved and immediately produced. This appeal is related to Item 2. Executive Session Minutes only. No other record request items are being appealed at this time. Open Meeting Law Mr. Wood’s appeal petition along with the Town’s June 11th response, raise issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kevin Wood