Tom Stalcup v. Brookline, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253089)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 29, 2025 SPR25/3089 Ben Kaufman Town Clerk Town of Brookline 333 Washington Street, Room 104 Brookline, MA 02445 Dear Mr. Kaufman: I have received the petition of Tom Stalcup appealing the response of the Town of Brookline (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 15, 2025, Mr. Stalcup requested: [1] All communications between the Brookline Select Board and the Brookline Parks and Recreation Department between 7/14/2024 and 9/15/2025. [2] All communications between any Brookline Select Board member and any employee, official, or person of/from the Brookline Parks and Recreation Department. On July 17, 2025, Mr. Stalcup modified the scope of his request to “all communications on or after the requested start date”: [1] to/from Green Dog Program email, with or without the word dog or dogs since this is a dog program. [2] with the word “dog” or “dogs” between (to, from, cc, or bcc) the Brookline select board and the following: [a] Parks and Open Space Director [b] Visitors Services Supervisor [c] Park Ranger [d] Green Dog Program email (managed by several staff) [3] with the word “dog” or “dogs” between (to, from, cc, or bcc) individual select board members and the following: [a] Parks and Open Space Director [b] Visitors Services Supervisor [c] Park Ranger 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

Ben Kaufman SPR25/3089 Page 2 October 29, 2025 [d] Green Dog Program email (managed by several staff). The Town provided responses on July 17, 2025 and August 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Stalcup petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3089, 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. 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. Stalcup contends that “. . . most responsive records have been withheld without explanation. Indeed, I have personally been made aware of the existence of many more records that are responsive to my request that Brookline continues to withhold.” Mr. Stalcup further opines that the Town’s response “. . . may be incomplete, since it should include communications to/from various officials and offices for a period of over two years, including all communications during this period to the green dog program’s email address.” The Town’s July 17th and August 6th Responses On July 17, 2025, the Town produced a file containing four pages of emails and responded that “[b]etween Request Response and attachments, we believe you are receiving a comprehensive response to your request.” On August 6, 2025, the Town responded: I am going to have a huddle with DPW and IT to re-review and re-run the request. As you know, the initial scope was too large. We appreciate your willingness to

Ben Kaufman SPR25/3089 Page 3 October 29, 2025 adjust scope. Let me check with the team to make sure we’ve dotted our i’s and crossed our t’s on this one. I’ll be back in touch after that. Unclear if Additional Records Exist Based on Mr. Stalcup’s request and the Town’s response, it is unclear if the Town possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the Town must clarify whether it possess additional communications as described in Mr. Stalcup’s modified request. 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). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Town must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Stalcup 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. Stalcup may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tom Stalcup