Grapefruit Pluto v. Townsend, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252136)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 31, 2025 SPR25/2136 Harrison C. Mayotte Town Clerk Town of Townsend 272 Main Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Mr. Mayotte: I have received the petition of Grapefruit Pluto (requestor) appealing the response of the Town of Townsend (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 18, 2025, the requestor referred to “The Peach Budget” and requested “the release of every message, every note, every whisper that passed between May 1 and May 15.” The Town responded on June 27, 2025, and assigned tracking number 2025-0211 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, the requestor petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2136, 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. 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

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR25/2136 Page 2 July 31, 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 Town’s June 27th Response In its June 27, 2025 response, the Town states the following: The Town . . . requests that you modify the scope of your request by giving a date range during which the responsive records were created; specifying who create and/or received the responsive records; and specifying the matter(s) or subject(s) to which the responsive records pertain, as doing so will allow the Town to produce the responsive records more efficiently and more affordably. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor argues the following: The request was clear. The subject was explicit. The timeframe was delineated. . . . [The] request does specify: o A subject: The Peach Budget. o A timeframe: May 1 through May 15, 2025. o The topic of communications: all discussions related to the budget’s formulation and its impact on the fire department. Reasonable Description of the Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgements about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR25/2136 Page 3 July 31, 2025 This office encourages the requestor and the Town to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The requestor may consider narrowing the scope of the request to enable the Town to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Town must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after the requestor and the Town communicate further as described above, the requestor may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Grapefruit Pluto