Dan Riley v. Sandwich, Town of (SPR 20252651)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 19, 2025 SPR25/2651 Taylor D. White Town Clerk Town of Sandwich 100 Route 6A Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Mr. White: I have received the petition of Dan Riley appealing the response of the Town of Sandwich (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 9, 2025, Mr. Riley requested the following: [A]ny and all “google form” email correspondence to or from the following employees of the Sandwich Public Schools: [including one specified email address.] The google form emails I am requesting should include any communications containing any of the following keywords or phrases that got automatically inserted into the google form from an email blast to the school community on May 5th: [including a list of 12 search terms.] Please include the communications from May 4, 2025 to June 6, 2025. Following further correspondence with Mr. Riley, the Town responded on July 9, August 12, and August 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Riley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2651, 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). 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

Taylor D. White SPR25/2651 Page 2 September 19, 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. 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, Mr. Riley states that “I am seeking to appeal the Town’s August 12th response,” and argues the following: [T]he school claims the responses to an email request to the public for nominations does not exist. Parents and Students filled out a google form created by the Superintendent. All responses get automatically put into a google sheet to see the responses. I asked for these responses with the names attached. If they need to redact students names for privacy I am totally ok with that and said as much to the town record administrator. The Town’s August 12th Response In its August 12, 2025 response, the Town cites Exemption (b) of the Public Records Law for withholding responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of records that are: Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an

Taylor D. White SPR25/2651 Page 3 September 19, 2025 agency”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act). The courts have interpreted the federal exemption to allow withholding of materials that, if released, could cause agency rules or regulations to be circumvented. See Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (1983) (internal codes are exempt where disclosure may enable outsiders to circumvent agency functions). The analysis employed by the federal courts requires a two-pronged test. Material is exempt if it is predominantly used internally and if disclosed would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. See Marrera v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F. Supp. 51, 55 (D.D.C. 1985) (Bureau of Prisons access and identity codes were properly withheld as materials in which the public would have no legitimate interest or which would compromise security if disclosed). The Town is advised that, under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). In this case, based on the Town’s August 12th response, the Town has not demonstrated that the requested records are solely related to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit. Additionally, the Town has not explained whether such records are predominantly used internally, and it is unclear how such records would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. The Town must clarify these matters. Additionally, it is unclear from the Town’s response which specific records the Town intends to withhold. The Town must identify the records, categories of records, or portions of records it intends to withhold under Exemption (b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). It is further uncertain why the records must be withheld in their entirety. The Town must explain whether the records can be redacted so that segregable portions can be provided. See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Riley with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr.

Taylor D. White SPR25/2651 Page 4 September 19, 2025 Riley may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dan Riley