Brian McWilliams v. Bourne, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20252548)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2548 Marlene McCollem Records Access Officer Town of Bourne 24 Perry Avenue Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 Dear Ms. McCollem: I have received the petition of Brian McWilliams appealing the response of the Town of Bourne (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 31, 2025, Mr. McWilliams requested the following: [1] A copy of the relevant phone or communication records showing what numbers were contacted, at what times, and by what method (call, text, or voicemail). [2] Any internal written or verbal statements provided by the staff members involved in handling this incident. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2350 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 19, 2025). In my August 19th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the Town possessed additional records responsive to Mr. McWilliams’ request. The Town responded on August 22, 2025 and August 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. McWilliams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2548, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that under the Public Records Law the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of 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

Marlene McCollem SPR25/2548 Page 2 September 9, 2025 Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. McWilliams’ interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public nature of the records. 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. See 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 August 22nd and 25th Responses On August 22, 2025, the Town stated the following: First, the Town has provided you with all records in its possession that are responsive to the two items in your request. The Town has withheld no records from you. Second … [t]he Town provided those records to you … not under obligation from the Public Records Law, but separately, in your capacity as a parent and as a person listed in camp authorizations as a parent… Third, certain redactions were made [to the] communications records and logs, under exemption (c) of the Public Records Law … [s]pecifically, the Town redacted information from phone numbers and certain names, that would have compromised the privacy of other minor campers and their families from those call logs … In an August 22, 2025 email to the Town, Mr. McWilliams stated the following:

Marlene McCollem SPR25/2548 Page 3 September 9, 2025 I am requesting a direct response to the following questions within 10 days of August 19, 2025 (SPR25/2350): [1] Was a text sent, or a phone call placed? [2] If so, where is the record? [3] To whom was it placed? [4] If not, why has it been repeatedly represented otherwise? On August 25, 2025, the Town stated, “[u]nfortunately, in efforts to quickly respond to your questions, the Town’s initial communications to you were made based on a mistaken understanding by camp staff about what happened and was wrong. With time and fuller investigation of the records, the Town has determined that the records provided to you are all the records in the Town’s possession. Under the Public Records Law, the Town’s response is complete.” Current Appeal In his August 27, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. McWilliams stated, “[p]lease find attached my formal appeal regarding SPR25/2350…. These materials demonstrate the contradictions in the Town’s position and the absence of any record supporting its own statements.” Upon review of the appeal, it appears that Mr. McWilliams does not object to the redactions made to the phone call log pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. No Duty to Answer Questions or 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). The duty to comply with 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 Where the Town has provided all responsive records and has no duty to answer questions, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. McWilliams 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).

Marlene McCollem SPR25/2548 Page 4 September 9, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian McWilliams Bryan Bertram, Esq.