Todd Seligman v. Swampscott, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252162)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 5, 2025 SPR25/2162 Jared H. LaLiberte Town Clerk Town of Swampscott 22 Monument Avenue Swampscott, MA 01907 Dear Mr. LaLiberte: I have received the petition of Todd Seligman, in his capacity as President of the Swampscott Fire Fighters Union Local 1459 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, appealing the response of the Town of Swampscott (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 24, 2025, Mr. Seligman requested a copy of a Town official’s report regarding “one-on-one meetings [with] fire department members that [was] conducted in January/February this year.” The Town responded on May 2, 2025, May 5, 2025, May 13, 2025, and July 21, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Seligman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2162, 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

Jared H. LaLiberte SPR25/2162 Page 2 August 5, 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 May 2nd, May 5th, May 13th, and July 21st Responses On May 2, 2025, after a follow-up inquiry from Mr. Seligman, a Town official responded, “I am still waiting to hear back from legal counsel as to whether or not I can share that information.” In its May 5, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[t]hank you for your recent request. As you are aware, participation in these meetings was entirely voluntary. To proceed appropriately, I kindly ask that you clarify how the information you are requesting is relevant and reasonably necessary for the Union to carry out its duties related to representation and collective bargaining.” After two further follow-up emails from Mr. Seligman, the Town provided a redacted report on May 13, 2025, and stated, “[t]he redacted information is not relevant and reasonably necessary to the Union’s representation of its members.” Mr. Seligman subsequently requested the unredacted report in further emails sent on June 30, 2025, July 9, 2025, and July 21, 2025. Counsel for the Town responded on July 21, 2025, “[a]s has been previously told to you and your counsel, the redacted portion is not relevant and reasonably necessary to the Union’s representation of its members. The Town… will not be responding any further to you on this issue.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Seligman stated: …[W]e are writing to request your assistance in obtaining a complete un-redacted copy of any and all reports/summaries/notes that were prepared as a result of the Town of Swampscott’s 1:1 survey meetings in January/February with union members in the fire department. Union Executive Officers submitted a total of six (6) requests for the resulting report(s) since April 24, 2025 to enable them to perform their duties to the membership but only received a heavily redacted version. Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact public records. In this case, the Town redacted the record without claiming any exemption(s) in the Public Records Law that would support the redaction of the responsive record. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or

Jared H. LaLiberte SPR25/2162 Page 3 August 5, 2025 municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co.v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Town must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Seligman with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Seligman may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Seligman