Alan J. Dias v. Hanson, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20252749)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 29, 2025 SPR25/2749 Lisa M. Green, Esq. Town Administrator Town of Hanson 542 Liberty Street Hanson, MA 02341 Dear Attorney Green: I have received the petition of Alan J. Dias appealing the response of the Town of Hanson (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 28, 2025, Mr. Dias requested “... the Executive session meeting minutes for the Planning Board for May 8, 2023.” The Town responded on September 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Dias petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2749, 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. 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. 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

Lisa M. Green, Esq. SPR25/2749 Page 2 September 29, 2025 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 September 11th Response In its September 11, 2025 response, the Town cited the Open Meeting Law as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records. Current Appeal In his September 17, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Dias stated: I am appealing the Town’s refusal to provide the full records of its Planning Board executive session held on May 8, 2023. The Town has withheld these records by citing G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(1). . . . The stated purpose of this session, however, was to review the conduct of two elected Planning Board members . . . during the Board’s May 1, 2025 meeting. These are not employees or staff. They are elected officials whose conduct is inherently a matter of public accountability. … There is also a temporal issue. Under G.L. c. 30A, § 22(f), executive session minutes “shall be disclosed when the purpose for the executive session has been served and disclosure will no longer defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session.” The May 8, 2023 session addressed the behavior at the May 1, 2023 meeting. That purpose was concluded two years ago, and there is no continuing justification for secrecy. Open Meeting Law In its September 11th response, the Town stated: Please be advised while these minutes were prepared and approved, they were not released by the Board. Thus, the minutes are being withheld pursuant to the statutory exemption with the underlying statute being the Open Meeting Law, as well as the privacy exemption. The nature of the Town’s response and Mr. Dias’ appeal raise issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney

Lisa M. Green, Esq. SPR25/2749 Page 3 September 29, 2025 General and not this office, I decline to address this issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alan J. Dias