Kristin Wise v. Andover, Town of (SPR 20253312)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 25, 2025 SPR25/3312 Kathryn L. Forina Records Access Officer Town of Andover 36 Bartlet Street Andover, MA 01810 Dear Ms. Forina: I have received the petition of Kristin Wise appealing the response of the Town of Andover (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 9, 2025, Ms. Wise requested “the Town Manager individual evaluation instruments completed by the five members of the Select Board.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3117 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 6, 2025). In my November 6th determination, I found the Town had provided a supplemental response to Ms. Wise and the Public Records Division on October 29, 2025, and considered the appeal closed. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Wise petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3312, 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 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

Kathryn L. Forina SPR25/3117 Page 2 November 25, 2025 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 her appeal, Ms. Wise states, “[t]he ‘Power Point Presentation’ has been edited from the original version presented and approved at the August 20 Select Board meeting. Releasing the individual evaluation instruments will clarify whether the slide set presented or posted accurately reflects the evaluation instrument and data submitted. The ‘composite review’ sent to the members of the Select Board and the media, contains five instances of duplicate wording. Releasing the individual evaluation instruments will clarify whether all comments submitted by the five members were included in the composite and whether the duplicates are editing errors[.]” The Town’s October 29th Response In its October 29, 2025 response, the Town cited the Open Meeting Law and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, stating: The individual evaluation instruments of the five Select Board members that you refer to are not considered public records under the Open Meeting Law and are exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law… [t]he Massachusetts Public Records Law confirms that all documents used during a public meeting are public documents. As such, the Town Manager’s composite review is a public document and is provided to the public to view on the Town’s website. However, the individual evaluation instruments the Select Board members provide to the Chief People Officer are not considered public meeting document. The Town of Andover’s response to Ms. Wise’s public records request is in full compliance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The composite review, which aggregates feedback and scoring from all five Select Board members, and the PowerPoint Presentation describing the composite review are the only review documents used or relied upon during a public meeting and are therefore the only records subject to disclosure under both the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Law. Ms. Wise is already in possession of the composite review, having received a copy directly from the Chair of the Select Board. The PowerPoint Presentation containing the composite presentation is available upon request[.]

Kathryn L. Forina SPR25/3117 Page 3 November 25, 2025 Open Meeting Law The Town’s response raises issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the Open Meeting Law issues. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kristin Wise