Eric Richards v. Auburn, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253174)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 12, 2025 SPR25/3174 Ginger L. Buteau Town Clerk Town of Auburn 104 Central Street Auburn, MA 01501 Dear Ms. Buteau: I have received the petition of Eric Richards appealing the response of the Town of Auburn (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 6, 2025, Mr. Richards submitted four public records requests to the Town for the following records: [1] Request #2025-780[:] Roadway Paving, Bids, Awards, Quantities, and Costs [2] Request #2025-781[:] Complete Accounting Trail for Sidewalks/Pedestrian Safety, inception–present [3] Request #2025-782[:] Sidewalk Funding, Projects, Quantities, and Costs (FY2021–Present) [4] Request #2025-783[:] Revised Phase I / Phase II Engineering for Eddy Pond Dam (MA02730), EAP updates, ODS correspondence, and related records (June 1, 2025–present)[.] The Town responded on October 14, 2025, October 17, 2025, October 20, 2025, October 21, 2025, and October 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Richards petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3174, 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

Ginger L. Buteau SPR25/3174 Page 2 November 12, 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. The Town’s October Responses Regarding Request 1 #2025-780, the Town stated on October 20, 2025, “the Town’s bid documents are posted on the Town’s website.” Regarding Request 2 #2025-781, the Town stated on October 17, 2025, “[a]ttached is an invoice for information to be provided by the Accounting Office in reference to public records request #2025-781.” Regarding Request 3 #2025-782, the Town stated on October 20, 2025, “[p]lease find attached correspondence related to Public Records Request #2025-782 Sidewalk Funding, Projects, Quantities, and Costs (FY2021–Present) ... the Town’s bid documents are posted on the town’s website ...” Regarding Request 4 #2025-783, the Town stated on October 14, 2025, “[p]lease see attached for correspondence/ documents for Eddy Pond Dam from June 1, 2025 to present.” In its October 21, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[the Town] will not be responding to your email. We are amending the invoices to break out actual time to each task as you have requested. It will be forthcoming.” The Town further responded on October 23, 2025, stating, “[t]he Town has made reasonable efforts to respond to your public records requests, and (while a debate continues to ensue as to whether you will agree to pay the required fee) the Town respectfully disagrees with your assertion that the Town has forfeited its right to assess a lawful fee under M.G.L. c. 66, §10(c).”

Ginger L. Buteau SPR25/3174 Page 3 November 12, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Richard states “[t]his email initiates a formal administrative appeal under M.G.L. c. 66 §10A and 950 CMR 32.08 regarding the Town of Auburn’s non-compliant handling of my four public records requests submitted on October 6, 2025. All subsequent Town actions, including but not limited to late, deficient fee estimates and post-deadline submissions by counsel, constitute constructive denial under 950 CMR 32.08(1) and trigger fee forfeiture under § 10(e) ...” G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under [G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)].” Where Mr. Richards submitted his request on October 6, 2025 and the Town provided its initial good faith fee estimate on October 17, 2025, I find the Town complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) by providing a timely response to Mr. Richards’ request and may charge a fee to produce the responsive records. Conclusion After a review of Mr. Richards’ and the Town’s responses, it appears that a copy of the Town’s initial invoice dated October 17, 2025, has not been provided to this office at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(g) (requestors shall provide to the Supervisor complete copies of all correspondence associated with the petition). Accordingly, I am unable to opine on the reasonableness of the Town’s estimate at this time. If unresolved issues remain, Mr. Richards may file a further appeal with this office with the necessary documents. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Eric Richards