Kathleen Spofford v. Townsend, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20253578)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 17, 2025 SPR25/3578 Nelson Mui Town Administrator Town of Townsend 272 Main Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Mr. Mui: I have received the petition of Kathleen Spofford appealing the response of the Town of Townsend (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 12, 2025, Ms. Spofford requested: All correspondence including e-mails and written correspondence between any and all members of the Selectboard, Townsend Fire/EMS Relief Association, [two identified individuals] [sic] regarding the lease of the Townsend Harbor Fire Station as well as videos and meeting minutes, and a copy of the lease of the Townsend Harbor Fire Station with the Townsend Fire/EMS Relief Association. The Town responded on November 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Spofford petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3578, 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

Nelson Mui SPR25/3578 Page 2 December 17, 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. The Town’s November 26th Response In its November 26, 2025 response, the Town provided a link to a video recording and a copy of meeting minutes related to a September 26, 2023 Town Select Board meeting. Additionally, the Town advised, “[a]ny minute research on the topic can be conducted in the Town Clerk office” and further noted, “[t]he Town Administrator is requesting clarification on [‘]any and all Selectboard members[.’]” Current Appeal In her December 4, 2025 appeal, Ms. Spofford objects to the clarification sought by the Town in its response and contends, “[t]he meaning of [‘]any and all Select Board members[’] is plain, unambiguous, and routinely used in public records requests. It means precisely what it says: every member of the Select Board. . . .” Upon review of the appeal file, she further notes in a December 4, 2025 email to this office that she did not provide clarification to the Town where she “did not feel it required clarification for [‘]any and all Selectmen Correspondence[’] for a particular item. . . .” Ms. Spofford additionally objects to the portion of the Town’s response in which it states, “[a]ny minute research on the topic can be conducted in the Town Clerk office” and argues, “[t]he RAO or custodian cannot require a citizen to personally conduct the Town’s search. . . .” She requests “that the Supervisor of Records: . . . [o]rder the production of . . . [a]ll meeting minutes and videos[,] [and] [t]he lease agreement for the Townsend Harbor Fire Station.” Based on Ms. Spofford’s above claims, it is unclear whether the Town possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Town possesses additional responsive meeting minutes and videos, as well as “[t]he lease agreement for the Townsend Harbor Fire Station[.]” If the Town does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). 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). The Town must clarify this matter. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be advised that 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

Nelson Mui SPR25/3578 Page 3 December 17, 2025 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). 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.” (emphasis in original). Id. Based on Ms. Spofford’s original written request, in conjunction with information provided in her appeal petition and December 4, 2025 email to this office, I find it is unclear what specific records of correspondence she is seeking. If Ms. Spofford seeks specific records of correspondence between one or more members of the Town’s Select Board, and/or the entities and individuals identified in her request, she may wish to clarify her written request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Further, it is valid for the custodian of records to 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Accordingly, I will consider the portion of Ms. Spofford’s appeal concerning her request for correspondence closed. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Spofford with a response to her 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: Kathleen Spofford