Shawn M. McCormack v. Sandisfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253100)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 24, 2025 SPR25/3100 Douglas Miner Town Clerk Town of Sandisfield 66 Sandisfield Road Sandisfield, MA 01255 Dear Mr. Miner: I have received the petition of Shawn M. McCormack, Esq., of Davis Malm, on behalf of Ralph E. Morrison and Ricardo Sanchez, appealing the response of the Town of Sandisfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 11, 2025, Attorney McCormack requested: [1] All public records in the custody of the Town of Sandisfield (including the Select Board and Fire Department) consisting of or relating to the audio recording of the conversation between [two identified individuals] that was played at the July 14, 2025 meeting of the Sandisfield Select Board, including the original recording, its source, any transcripts, notes, or summaries of that recording. [2] All written communications (including emails, text messages, and other electronic records) sent or received by any Town employee, Select Board member, or official from July 5, 2025 to the present that refer to or discuss the recording of [two identified individuals], or a. its origin, including references to a “butt dial” or “pocket dial” or an alleged “whistleblower”, b. whether the said recording should be played at the Select Board meeting, c. whether the said recording or a transcript thereof could be legally used, circulated, or posted. [3] All public records in the custody of the Town of Sandisfield (including the Select Board and Fire Department) that identify or describe the “whistleblower” 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

Douglas Miner SPR25/3100 Page 2 October 24, 2025 who allegedly provided the recording or transcript to the Town, including correspondence, emails, text messages, internal memos, and meeting notes. [4] All public records in the custody of the Town of Sandisfield (including the Select Board and Fire Department) relating to any dissemination of the recording or the transcript to persons outside the Town government, including but not limited to: a. e-mails forwarding the recording or transcript, b. social media postings by Town officials, c. press or media contacts about the recording or transcript. The Town responded on September 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Attorney McCormack petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3100, 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. 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 September 23rd Response In its September 23, 2025 response, the Town provided responsive records, but withheld other records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney McCormack argued against the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (f), as well as the Town’s “failure to segregate and produce non-exempt portions.” In addition, Attorney McCormack stated:

Douglas Miner SPR25/3100 Page 3 October 24, 2025 The request was made on behalf of Ralph E. Morrison and Ricardo Sanchez, whom I represent in the ongoing litigation in the Berkshire Superior Court, Morrison et. al. v. Grillo et. al., Docket No. 2576CV00137… On August 4, 2025, Morrison and Sanchez filed the above-referenced litigation… for violation of the Mass. wiretapping statute (G. L. c. 272, § 99), invasion of privacy (G.L. c. 214, § 1B), and violation of their constitutional rights to speak freely about local government affairs and elected officials without facing threats, intimidation, or coercion (G.L. c. 12, § 11I). 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 records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Berkshire County Superior Court. See Morrison et al v. Grillo et al, Berkshire Superior Court Docket No. 2576CV00137 (August 4, 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 (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. 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: Shawn M. McCormack, Esq. Ralph E. Morrison Ricardo Sanchez