Ron Cecchini v. Milton, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253128)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2025 SPR25/3128 Susan M. Galvin Town Clerk Town of Milton 525 Canton Avenue Milton, MA 02186 Dear Ms. Galvin: I have received the petition of Ron Cecchini appealing the response of the Town of Milton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 6, 2025, Mr. Cecchini requested, “…all emails between [an identified individual] and Select Board chair for the time period of May 1, 2025 through July 6, 2025. These are all emails from [an identified individual] to [an identified individual] (or a group that includes [an identified individual]) and all emails from [an identified individual] to [an identified individual] (or a group that includes [an identified individual]).” On July 27, 2025, Mr. Cecchini modified his request, seeking the following: [1] A Vaughn Index of all emails withheld under the claimed attorney-client privilege exemption[;] [2] Production of all responsive records with redactions as appropriate, rather than wholesale withholding[;] [3] Clarification of the specific statutory basis under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7 you are relying upon to assert attorney-client privilege[;] [4] Records establishing when and how [an identified individual] was retained as Special Counsel, including: [a] Letters of engagement or contracts[;] [b] Scope of engagement[;] [c] Any compensation (planned or paid)[;] 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

Susan M. Galvin SPR25/3128 Page 2 November 6, 2025 [d] Who approved or signed the engagement (Chair or full Select Board)[;] [5] Clarification on the Town’s policy and legal basis for asserting attorney-client privilege…[;] [6]…all emails or written communications between [an identified individual] to any member of the Select Board, and from any member of the Select Board to [an identified individual], for the time frame April 1, 2025 to July 6, 2025. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2270 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 11, 2025) and SPR25/2587 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 12, 2025). In my September 12th determination, I found that the Town did not meet the requirements to withhold communications under the attorney-client privilege. The Town responded on September 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Cecchini petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3128, 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. See 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. See 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 16th Response In its September 16, 2025 response, the Town provided a privilege log identifying twelve (12) records that it intends to withhold under the attorney-client privilege, and includes the dates, authors, recipients, and descriptions of the records, and the basis on which the privilege is being claimed.

Susan M. Galvin SPR25/3128 Page 3 November 6, 2025 Current Appeal In his October 24, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Cecchini objected to the Town’s withholding of records responsive to Item 6 under the attorney-client privilege and stated, “[an identified individual], a Milton resident, independently offered to represent the Town pro bono regarding the classification under the MBTA Communities Act. The Select Board voted on June 20, 2025 to appoint him as special counsel, and less than a week later, on June 26, 2025, announced his resignation…” Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007 (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the ground upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its September 16th response, the Town provided a privilege log identifying twelve (12) records that it intends to withhold under the attorney-client privilege, and includes the dates, authors, recipients, and descriptions of the records, and the basis on which the privilege is being claimed. The Town stated, “[o]n June 20, 2025, the Milton Select Board appointed [an identified individual] as special counsel in relation to potential litigation against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding the MBTA Communities Act. Emails sent and received during this time period and materials he prepared for the Select Board’s consideration are subject to the attorney- client privilege…” Additionally, the Town stated, “[e]mails were related to legal advice, in confidence, and this privilege has not been waived by the Town.” Where the Town has provided a detailed description of each record withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, including the names of the authors and recipients, the dates, the substance, and the grounds for claiming the privilege, and has also confirmed that the

Susan M. Galvin SPR25/3128 Page 4 November 6, 2025 communications were made in confidence and that the privilege has not been waived, I find the Town has met its burden to withhold the twelve (12) responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Cecchini is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ron Cecchini