Stephen Bassignani v. Brookfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253150)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2025 SPR25/3150 Michael P. Seery Town Clerk Town of Brookfield 6 Central Street Brookfield, MA 01506 Dear Mr. Seery: I have received the petition of Stephen Bassignani appealing the response of the Town of Brookfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 9, 2025, Mr. Bassignani sought the following: [1] Call Logs: Any and all call logs from both [an identified animal control officer’s] office phone and any cell phone used for official business that relate to any animal inquiries or inspections received from any other animal control officer or municipal employee within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated from October 7, 2025, through October 9, 2025[;] [2] Text Messages: Any and all text messages sent or received on any cell phone during the same period that pertain to any animal or kennel inspections within the Commonwealth or other related activities[;] [3] Official Cell Phone Number: The cell phone number used by [an identified animal control officer] for official business on October 7, 2025. The Town responded on October 23, 2025, denying the request. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Bassignani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3150, 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 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

Michael Seery SPR25/3150 Page 2 November 6, 2025 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 October 27, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Bassignani states that he, “would like the [sic] appeal the entire response provided by the town of Brookfield[.]” Specifically, regarding Item 1 of his request, he states, “the call log should not be exempt as again just because the ACO uses her personal phone for official communications[.]” Regarding Item 2, he further claims, “a request for any and all texts between [an identified animal control officer] and any other ACO or municipal employee should not be exempt because any animal or kennel inspections are considered official business.” Moreover, as it pertains to Item 3 and generally to his request, Mr. Bassignani contends, “as the cell phone used by the Brookfield animal control officer for official business is not exempt from information requests simply because it's a private cell phone[.]” The Town’s October 23rd Response Item 1 In its October 23, 2025 response, regarding Item 1 of the request, the Town advised, “[a]fter reaching out to [the identified animal control officer] it was determined that she has no call logs responsive to this request for the Town of Brookfield.” The Town is advised that 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). Additionally, public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). Based on the issues raised in Mr. Bassignani’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Town possesses records responsive to Item 1 of the request. Specifically, where Town business may have been conducted using a private cell phone, it is unclear whether any records responsive to

Michael Seery SPR25/3150 Page 3 November 6, 2025 Item 1 were created in furtherance of Town business within the specified period using the specified private cell phone. The Town must clarify this. Item 2 In response to Item 2, the Town noted, “[g]iven the context of this request, the Town interprets it as seeking text messages sent or received on the ACO’s cell phone(s), and not more broadly to any cell phone of any town official.” The Town further cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019) and provided the following in contending that Item 2 of Mr. Bassignani’s request “is not sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of the Public Records Law[:]” Here, your request is not limited in scope in time, and broadly seeks text messages that “pertain to any animal or kennel inspections within the Commonwealth or other related activities.” (emphasis added). This is not sufficiently specific and the Town is not required to parse through all possibly responsive text messages to determine what might be “related to” animal or kennel inspections. Reasonable Description of Records Sought A request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” Id. As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Based on the foregoing, with respect to Item 2, I find it is unclear what specific records Mr. Bassignani is requesting. Mr. Bassignani may wish to clarify his request to the Town in order to provide the sufficient particularity needed to search the Town’s records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Item 3 In its response to Item 3, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and stated, “[the identified animal control officer] does not have a Town-issued cell phone; and she has a privacy interest in her personal cell phone number pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c).”

Michael Seery SPR25/3150 Page 4 November 6, 2025 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Based on the Town’s response, in conjunction with Mr. Bassignani’s appeal, it is unclear if the withheld personal cell phone number was used for Town business. The Town must clarify. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Bassignani with a response to Items 1 and 3 of 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.

Michael Seery SPR25/3150 Page 5 November 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stephen Bassignani