Todd Seligman v. Swampscott, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20252604)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 12, 2025 SPR25/2604 Jared H. LaLiberte Town Clerk Town of Swampscott 22 Monument Avenue Swampscott, MA 01907 Dear Mr. LaLiberte: I have received the petition of Todd Seligman, in his capacity as President of the Swampscott Fire Fighters Union Local 1459 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, appealing the response of the Town of Swampscott (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 24, 2025, Mr. Seligman requested a copy of a Town official’s report regarding “one-on-one meetings [with] fire department members that [was] conducted in January/February this year.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2162 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 5, 2025). In my August 5th determination, I ordered the Town to clarify its basis for redacting the responsive record. The Town responded on August 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Seligman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2604, 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. 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

Jared H. LaLiberte SPR25/2604 Page 2 September 12, 2025 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 August 19th Response In its August 19, 2025 response, an attorney for the Town cited Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law in support of redacting the responsive record. In addition, the attorney stated: … [Y]ou currently have a lawsuit pending against the Town of Swampscott, at Essex Superior Court C.A. No. 2377CV00443. Your records requests, above, are related to and intertwined with that pending litigation and you have made discovery requests for the exact same information, which is pending. The Union and you have also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Department of Labor Relations seeking the exact same information, MUP-25-11479, which is also pending. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Seligman argued against the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (d) and stated, “…the Union is requesting this public record separately – for reasons unrelated to any pending personal litigation.” Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested record is the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Essex County Superior Court. See Seligman, Todd vs. Town of Swampscott et al, Essex Superior Court Docket No. 2377CV00443 (May 10, 2023).

Jared H. LaLiberte SPR25/2604 Page 3 September 12, 2025 In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law to the requested record. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Seligman