Grapefruit Pluto v. Townsend, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252278)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 14, 2025 SPR25/2278 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 sought, “. . . every record—e-mails, memos, spreadsheets, bank statements, grant files, meeting minutes, audit work-papers, Slack messages, sticky notes on monitors— relating to the mysterious, [‘]oops-where-did-it-go?[’] $100,000 shortfall in the Town’s ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds, from the moment those dollars hit the Town’s books to the present.” On June 27, 2025, the Town acknowledged receipt of the request and provided a tracking number for reference. Subsequently, the Town provided a response on July 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, the requestor petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2278, 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 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 SPR25/2278 Page 2 August 14, 2025 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 July 15th Response In its July 15, 2025 response, the Town sought “clarification regarding the nature and basis of the referenced [‘]$100,000 shortfall.[’]” The Town advised, “please clarify whether you are referring to an actual financial loss or discrepancy in ARPA funds, or to funds that may be temporarily unspent, pending obligation, or subject to accounting review. Clarification will assist the Town in determining what records, if any, are responsive to your request.” The Town additionally cited Friedman v. Division of Admin. Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024) and, in doing so, “respectfully [requested] that [the requestor] modify the scope of [the] request by: Providing a date range during which the responsive records were created; Specifying individuals or departments involved in the creation or receipt of those records; [and] Clarifying the subject matter or particular transactions that prompted [the] request.” Current Appeal In the August 5, 2025 appeal petition, the requestor states the following: It has now been two full weeks since I explicitly appealed the Town of Townsend’s non-response to [the June 18, 2025] Public Records Request . . . . Let’s review: My request was submitted on June 18, 2025. The Town acknowledged it and committed to a response . . . .That deadline came and went, with no records, no exemptions, no timeline. On July 21, I issued a formal appeal by replying to the RAO and CC’ing [this office], that’s you, as directed by 950 CMR 32.08.That appeal met every legal requirement. And yet: no action . . . I am calling on [this office], immediately, to do your job: Acknowledge my appeal, filed on July 21. Issue a determination as required. Hold the Town of Townsend accountable for its violation of M.G.L. c. 66, § 10. Upon review of the file, it is my understanding that the “appeal, filed on July 21[,]” as described above, concerns July 21, 2025 email correspondence to the Town and copied to this office in which the requestor provided clarification and modified the scope of the request as suggested by the Town in its July 15th response. Specifically, in providing clarification, the requestor stated, “Yes, I’m talking about a real, actual $100,000 that’s missing. . . . Don’t waste time asking for more [‘]clarification.[’] You know exactly what this is about.” Further, the

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR25/2278 Page 3 August 14, 2025 requestor modified the scope of the request and stated, “[y]ou want a date range? Sure: March 2021 to present. People involved? Start with whoever handled ARPA funds, finance, Town Administration, and Select Board. Subject matter? The part where the town blew $100K and can’t explain how.” Unclear Appeal Based on the foregoing, the basis of the requestor’s appeal is unclear. Please be advised, all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). In this case, where the requestor clarified and modified the scope of their request on July 21, 2025, their claim that, “[t]he Town acknowledged [the June 18, 2025 request] and committed to a response . . . . That deadline came and went, with no records, no exemptions, no timeline” is unclear. In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If issues remain once the requestor receives a response to their modified July 21st request, they 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