Edward Tricker v. Dartmouth, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20252308)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 19, 2025 SPR25/2308 Sarah Haskell-Arruda Town Clerk Town of Dartmouth 400 Slocum Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 Dear Ms. Arruda: I have received the petition of Dr. Edward Tricker appealing the response of the Town of Dartmouth (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 5, 2025, Dr. Tricker requested the following records “created or received between January 1, 2000 and the present,” that concern “the firing range located at or near . . . Woodcock Road, Dartmouth, MA[:]” [1] Internal and external communications . . . referencing the range, the New Bedford Police Department, or related concerns raised by residents, officials, or external entities; [2] Meeting agendas, minutes, and recordings from any official Town meeting in which the range or related issues were discussed; [3] Permitting documents, environmental or zoning filings, and regulatory submissions or reviews related to the range; [4] Incident reports or complaints involving noise, stray bullets, injuries, or other safety-related incidents linked to the range; [5] Environmental or public health data . . ., especially those relating to wetlands and Zone II wellhead protection areas; [6] Legal correspondence, memoranda, or internal analyses regarding jurisdictional questions, liability risks, or the Town’s obligations or oversight role concerning the facility; [7] Communications with local, state, or federal agencies—including but not limited to MassDEP, EPA, ATF, the Massachusetts Environmental Police, and elected officials; [8] Any formal or informal assessments, strategies, or policy discussions regarding the range’s operation, risk mitigation, or intergovernmental coordination. 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

Sarah Haskell-Arruda SPR25/2308 Page 2 August 19, 2025 Additionally, in making his request, Dr. Tricker states, “[s]hould the Town . . . anticipate any charges exceeding $100, please notify me in advance.” The Town responded on August 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Dr. Tricker petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2308, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Town provided additional information to Dr. Tricker and this office in an email dated August 8, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Dr. Tricker asserts, “[t]he Town responded . . . on Thursday, August 7, with vague statements suggesting the cost of compliance would be in the [‘]tens of thousands of dollars[’] and has indicated it may seek even higher costs by invoking supervisory personnel rates.” He further argues that the Town “has failed to provide any itemized breakdown, time estimate, or clear legal justification for these claims.” The Town’s Responses In August 7, 2025 response, a representative of the Town stated the following: Please be advised that your request has been sent to numerous departments, each of which would be required to conduct an exhaustive search given the extreme breadth of your request. The Town will be providing you with an estimate. However, based the scope, it is expected that the estimate will cost tens of thousands of dollars. In addition to locating and producing documents, the Town

Sarah Haskell-Arruda SPR25/2308 Page 3 August 19, 2025 will also need to review and redact portions of the records which are exempt from production. Given the nature of the documents to be reviewed, including confidential communications, the Town will be petitioning the Secretary of State to charge for supervisory personnel rates. Therefore, the estimate will likely increase far beyond the initial estimate. In an effort to make this search reasonable and affordable, I respectfully request that you narrow the scope of your request. Please let me know if you are willing to do so as soon as possible. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in its August 8, 2025 response to Dr. Tricker and this office, counsel for the Town stated, “[t]he records request was received by the Town on Tuesday August 5, 2025 at 4:21 PM and forwarded and received by the Records Access Officer on August 6, 2025. The time for the Town to respond is not even close to expiring.” Town counsel additionally advised, “[i]nstead, based upon the extreme breadth of the request, and the requester’s statement: [‘]Should the Town …anticipate any charges exceeding $100, please notify me in advance[’], the Town Clerk explained I[n] an email that the response would require a significant payment.” Town counsel further noted, “[t]he Town . . . still has several business days to respond and this appeal is premature.” Unclear Appeal In its August 7th response, the Town indicated its intention to assess a fee for the provision of records responsive to Dr. Tricker’s request and suggested a modification to the scope of his request “given [its] extreme breadth[.]” In its August 8th response, counsel for the Town further noted that the Town’s previous August 7th correspondence was made due to the portion of Dr. Tricker’s request in which he asked that the Town, “notify [him] in advance” should the Town “anticipate any charges exceeding $100[.]” The Town has neither denied the request, nor provided a fee estimate. Accordingly, the basis of Dr. Tricker’s appeal is unclear. Dr. Tricker is advised that 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). This office encourages Dr. Tricker and the Town to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Dr. Tricker may wish to narrow the parameters of his request or include factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The Town must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the Town must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Conclusion 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). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Dr. Tricker in his appeal petition, I am

Sarah Haskell-Arruda SPR25/2308 Page 4 August 19, 2025 unable to issue a determination at this time. If Dr. Tricker 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, § l0A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dr. Edward Tricker