Stephen Bassignani v. Brookfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253447)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3447 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 November 7, 2025, Mr. Bassignani sought the following: [1] . . . [T]ext messages exchanged between the Brookfield Animal Control Officer and the Sturbridge Animal Control Officer between October 1, 2025, and October 31, 2025[;] [2] . . . [T]ext messages sent or received on the Brookfield Animal Control Officer’s cell phone used for official business that contain [two variations of a specified name] . . . between October 1, 2025, and October 31, 2025[;] [3] . . . [T]ext messages referencing any animal or shelter inspection that [an identified animal control officer] was aware of between October 1, 2025, and October 31, 2025[;] [4] . . . [T]ext messages referencing any involvement or communication between [an identified animal control officer] and the MSPCA between October 1, 2025, and October 31, 2025. In subsequent correspondence to the Town on November 7, 2025, Mr. Bassignani modified his request to include the period of October 1, 2025 to November 8, 2025. The Town responded on November 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Bassignani petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3447, was opened as a result. 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 SPR25/3447 Page 2 December 4, 2025 Previous Appeal This subject matter of the request and the issues raised in Mr. Bassignani’s appeal are similar to those addressed in SPR25/3150 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 6, 2025). In my November 6th determination, I found that where Town business may have been conducted during a specified period using a specific private cell phone, the Town must clarify whether any responsive records were created in furtherance of Town business within the period using the private cell phone. Additionally, where the Town denied a request for the cell phone number used by a named Town employee on a specific date pursuant to Exemption (c) while noting that the Town employee does not have a Town-issued cell phone, I ordered the Town to clarify if the withheld personal cell phone number of the Town employee was used for Town business on the specified date. As a result, I ordered the Town to provide Mr. Bassignani with a response. Subsequently, Mr. Bassignani submitted the above request. 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. 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 November 20th Response In its November 20, 2025 response, a representative for the Town stated, “I shared this request with [an identified animal control officer] and she has declared that she has no [records responsive] . . . to your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Bassignani states that the animal control officer identified in his request “conducts official business on her personal cell phone” and contends, “those communications are not exempt from a . . . public records request.”

Michael Seery SPR25/3447 Page 3 December 4, 2025 Possession, Custody, or Control 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 the request. Specifically, where Town business may have been conducted using a private cell phone, it is unclear whether any responsive records were created in furtherance of Town business within the specified period using the private cell phone. The Town must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Bassignani with a response to his 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stephen Bassignani