Tiffany Dorego v. Walpole, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252316)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 20, 2025 SPR25/2316 Jim Johnson Town Administrator Town of Walpole 135 School Street Walpole, MA 02081 Dear Mr. Johnson: I have received the petition of Tiffany Dorego appealing the response of the Town of Walpole (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 14, 2025, Ms. Dorego requested: [1] All records or communications showing any familial, residential, or professional relationship between [an identified individual] and any current or former member of the Walpole Police Department, including sworn officers, civilian staff, or contractors. [2] Any internal discussions or records referencing [an identified individual] in relation to the April 10, 2025, fatal crash that killed [a named individual]. [3] Any communications or decisions made regarding the release or withholding of [an identified individual’s] name to the media or public. [4] Any documentation that may indicate conflict of interest, informal affiliation, or efforts to protect [an identified individual’s] identity within your department. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2225 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 11, 2025). In my August 11th Determination, I closed SPR25/2225 in light of the Town providing a response on July 31, 2025. Subsequently, I learned that an attorney for the Town provided a further response on August 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Ms. Dorego petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2316, was 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

Jim Johnson SPR25/2316 Page 2 August 20, 2025 opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, an attorney for the Town provided a supplemental response on August 19, 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. The Town’s July 31st and August 7th Responses In its July 31, 2025 response, the Town provided responsive records concerning “internal communications of the Police Department.” The Town also stated, “[a]fter diligent search, the Police Department does not have any additional responsive records that you requested…” On August 7, 202, while SPR25/2225 was pending, an attorney for the Town stated, “[t]he Town is unclear as to the basis of this appeal, as it did respond to the requester’s July 14, 2025 request, on July 31, 2025… the Town believes that it has properly responded to the July 14, 2025 request, within the 25 business days allotted for a full response. No fee was charged the requester for the items provided.” Current Appeal In an email to this office on August 7, 2025, Ms. Dorego stated that her appeal remains valid for the following reasons: [1] The Town of Walpole did not respond to my July 14, 2025 request within the 10 business days required by M.G.L. c. 66 §10(b)… [2] The response was delayed and appeared only after oversight was triggered… [3] The content of the response is vague and incomplete…

Jim Johnson SPR25/2316 Page 3 August 20, 2025 In two further emails to this office on August 12, 2025, Ms. Dorego provided the following supplemental information: I respectfully contend that this response is incomplete and fails to meet the requirements of M.G.L. c. 66, §10 for the following reasons: [1] Inadequate Search… [2] Failure to Address Specific Items… [3] No Citation of Exemptions… [4] Misrepresentation of Responsive Records… [5] Public Interest… Additional Concern – Possible Backdating of Response…While the Walpole Police Department’s letter is dated July 31, 2025, I did not receive this email until August 7, 2025... This raises serious concerns that the Department may have intentionally backdated its response to appear compliant with the Public Records Law deadlines, when in fact the response was late… I noted that the Town of Walpole’s response was handled not only by the Police Department and Town officials, but also by three separate attorneys from KP Law… This degree of coordination may indicate that the Town is treating my request as a high-risk matter and is taking extraordinary measures to control what information is released. Such circumstances raise further concerns about whether all responsive records have been provided, or whether over-redaction or improper withholding has occurred… In a telephone conversation with this office on August 13, 2025, an attorney for the Town stated that she believes the Town possesses no additional records responsive to Ms. Dorego’s request, but would confirm whether any responsive documents were withheld pursuant to any exemptions to the Public Records Law. In a supplemental response on August 19, 2025, an attorney for the Town stated, “I confirmed with my colleague here that assisted the Town in its initial response to Ms. Dorego’s request that records were not withheld under any exemption, but rather, we determined that certain records were simply not responsive to the request.” The supplemental response also included a screenshot reflecting that “[the Town] did in fact email the response to Ms. Dorego’s public records request on July 31, 2025.” No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, the duty to comply with

Jim Johnson SPR25/2316 Page 4 August 20, 2025 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). Conclusion Given that the Town has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to Ms. Dorego’s request, and this office has no authority to compel the Town to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Dorego 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 of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tiffany Dorego