Jacob Vaillancourt v. Hull, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253195)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2025 SPR25/3195 Jennifer Constable Town Manager Town of Hull 253 Atlantic Avenue Hull, MA 02045 Dear Ms. Constable: I have received the petition of Jacob Vaillancourt appealing the response of the Town of Hull (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 30, 2025, Mr. Vaillancourt requested: …the last 12 months of intertie and feeder kW/kVAR data (15-minute intervals if available) and compute power factor with: - Monthly average PF - PF during the top 5 system peak intervals - Any intervals with PF <0.95 Also please let us know whether any recent settlements include reactive power penalties or adjustments. The Town responded on October 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Vaillancourt petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3195, 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). 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

Jennifer Constable SPR25/3195 Page 2 November 6, 2025 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 October 29th Response In its October 29, 2025 response, the Town stated: …the Town is not required to answer questions, do research, or create documents in response to your request… Here, as in Chawla, the language of your request is very broad and calls upon nonlawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of your request and make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials you requested. You have therefore failed to satisfy the statutory standard. Accordingly, the Town requests that you modify your request to reasonably describe the records you seek. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Vaillancourt stated, “[t]he Town’s denial rests entirely on a misapplication of Chawla v. Mass. Dept. of Revenue and Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeals… My request seeks specific, objective, and quantifiable technical data from the Hull Municipal Light Plant (HMLP).” No Duty to Answer Questions Regarding the request for the Town to “please let us know whether any recent settlements include reactive power penalties or adjustments,” Mr. Vaillancourt 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). Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Where this portion of Mr. Vaillancourt’s request constitutes a question, I find that the Town has no duty under the Public Records Law to answer such questions and has met its burden in responding to this portion of the request.

Jennifer Constable SPR25/3195 Page 3 November 6, 2025 Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Regarding the language of the first part of Mr. Vaillancourt’s request, and based on the information provided in the appeal petition, it appears that Mr. Vaillancourt has provided specific descriptions of the records he is seeking, pertaining to “quantifiable technical data” from a specifically referenced timeframe. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear whether the Town possesses the responsive records. The Town is reminded 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). To the extent that the referenced records exist, I find the Town must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). This office encourages Mr. Vaillancourt and the Town to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Jennifer Constable SPR25/3195 Page 4 November 6, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Vaillancourt 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. Vaillancourt may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jacob Vaillancourt Alexander M. Castro, Esq.