Patricia Bensetler v. Bolton, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20252437)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 29, 2025 SPR25/2437 Marie Sobalvarro Town Administrator Town of Bolton 663 Main Street Bolton, MA 01740 Dear Ms. Sobalvarro: I have received the petition of Patricia Bensetler appealing the response of the Town of Bolton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 29, 2025, Ms. Bensetler requested: [1] Request by the BOH for work to be done by Beaver Solutions on or near the beaver dam near my house… The work is mentioned in the attached email from [an identified individual]. [2] Proposal from Beaver Solutions for the work requested in #1 also mentioned in attached email from [an identified individual] on June 14, 2025. The Town responded on August 5 and August 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Bensetler petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2437, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Town provided a supplemental response to this office 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). 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

Marie Sobalvarro SPR25/2437 Page 2 August 29, 2025 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. Att’y 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 her appeal petition, Ms. Bensetler states: No. I did not add anything to the offered word list. To be honest, it seemed to me a bit bizarre of a request. I know nothing about the computer system at Town Hall. I have no idea how they would go through a ‘word search’ on their system. I have never seen a RFP (request for a proposal) that might be produced by the BOH. I have never seen a proposal from Beaver Solutions. I have no idea what words it would contain…. I have told the Town Clerk and the Town Administrator that I would willingly accept copies of the requested documents from the vendor at issue…. The fact of a proposal was ‘visible’ for a short time in BOH meeting records. [Its] existence was confirmed by an email to me from the vendor. The meeting records showed that the BOH chair was trying to schedule a meeting with our Conservation Agent. She refused to meet. Later all the public meeting records were changed to delete reference to the discussion. The Town’s August 5th and August 6th response In its August 5, 2025 response, the Town states, “we’ve done a review of our records and the attachments you provided, and at this point we don’t see any responsive records. We want to make sure that we’re examining the correct documents. So, what we’d like to do is get together a list of keywords that we can provide to our IT partners. They can search all emails and provide us a comprehensive list that we can then review to see if they qualify for your request….” In its August 6, 2025 response, the Town further responded, “[w]e want to make sure that we’re examining the correct documents. So, what we’d like to do is get together a list of keywords that we can provide to our IT partners. They can search all emails and provide us a comprehensive list that we can then review to see if they qualify for your request….” In an email to a staff attorney of the Public Records Division on August 19, 2025, the Town asserted:

Marie Sobalvarro SPR25/2437 Page 3 August 29, 2025 As noted in the correspondence, the Town has not located a proposal from Beaver Solutions in our physical or digital records. In an effort to assist, we proposed to the requestor that she provide additional key words, and we would work with our I/T contractor to perform a keyword search across our email archives. The draft of possible search terms provided by the Town Clerk was offered in good faith, given that the precise name/language used in correspondence varies. We remain open to refining this list; for earlier PRR’s, inquirers have provided terms, our I/T contractor has loaded terms, and relevant records have been located and forwarded to the requestor…. It has been suggested by the requestor that the Town contact the vendor directly; per my understanding, the Town is not required to create a record, nor to obtain documents from outside parties that are not already in our possession. In its response, the Town is seeking clarification regarding the scope of Ms. Bensetler’s request. Please be advised that it is valid for the custodian of records to 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Given that the Town is unable to locate any responsive records to the request, Ms. Bensetler is encouraged to provide the Town with the needed clarification regarding the records she seeks. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public records sought). Once Ms. Bensetler has provided the needed clarification, the Town must provide a response within 10 business days. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Bensetler 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, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patricia Bensetler