Sanjay Patel v. Foxborough, Town of (SPR 20251790)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 3, 2025 SPR25/1790 Robert E. Cutler, Jr. Town Clerk Town of Foxborough 40 South Street Foxborough, MA 02035 Dear Mr. Cutler: I have received the petition of Sanjay Patel appealing the response of the Town of Foxborough (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 9, 2025, Mr. Patel requested the following records “related to [an identified individual] for the period of April 1, 2025 to May 1, 2025:” [1] A log or summary of all emails sent by [an identified individual] during the specified period, including sender, recipient(s), date, and subject line. This request does not seek the content of the emails but only the transactional data to verify activity during her claimed period of absence. [2] Any out-of-office notifications, automatic replies, or similar notices generated by [an identified individual’s] email account during the specified period, as well as any policies or guidelines regarding the required use of such notifications for extended absences by elected officials. [3] Any records indicating attendance at town meetings, including but not limited to meeting minutes, attendance logs, or official correspondence regarding her presence or absence. [4] Any communications indicating that [an identified individual] was unavailable, including notifications sent to residents, town staff, or officials regarding her absence or unavailability. [5] Records of any communications forwarded by [an identified individual] to other town officials or staff members, specifically those relating to my inquiries regarding financial transparency, budget allocations, and interest rates. 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

Robert E. Cutler, Jr. SPR25/1790 Page 2 July 3, 2025 On May 12, 2025, Mr. Patel modified his request to include, “all work-related text and any app used for communication.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1589 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2025). In my June 16th determination, I found that the Town needed to clarify whether there were additional records responsive to the request and needed to provide reasonable assistance to enable Mr. Patel to locate responsive records. The Town responded on June 23, 2025, providing additional records and assistance. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Patel appealed, and this case, SPR25/1790, 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. 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 23rd response In its June 23, 2025 response, the Town states for each item of the request: [1] [A] summary of the emails was attached to the prior response of the Town. For the purpose of clarity, the Town states that it has no other documents responsive to this request. [2] [T]he Town reiterates its position that it does not have any documents responsive to this request. [3] In its prior response, the Town indicated that the copies of the meeting minutes (3 meetings in total) for the requested time-period were on the Select Board’s page of the Town website. For the purpose of clarity and transparency, I am attaching copies of the minutes of the three meetings held during that period.

Robert E. Cutler, Jr. SPR25/1790 Page 3 July 3, 2025 To provide additional clarity, the Town does not possess or maintain any other records such as attendance logs or other official correspondence regarding presence or absence of a Board Member. [4] [T]he Town reiterates its position that it does not have any documents responsive to this request. [5] The Town provided a summary of the emails sent by her in response to item number 1 and refers to the same summary for its response to this item number 5. For the purpose of clarity, the Town states that it has no other documents responsive to this request. Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Mr. Patel states, “the Town of Foxborough hasn’t followed your June 16, 2025 order. By failing to provide the clarification you required, the Town has disregarded your supervisory authority….” No Duty to Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the Town on July 3, 2025, the Town confirmed that it searched for and has found no additional responsive records to Mr. Patel’s request. Conclusion Where the Town confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Patel’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Patel 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).

Robert E. Cutler, Jr. SPR25/1790 Page 4 July 3, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sanjay Patel