Wolf Aviation Network v. Westfield, City of (SPR 20253602)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 19, 2025 SPR25/3602 Robyn Gay Record Access Officer City of Westfield 59 Court Street Westfield, MA 01805 Dear Ms. Gay: I have received the petition of Wolf Aviation Network (requester), appealing the response of the City of Westfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 1, 2025, the requester submitted a public records request for the following: [1] All emails and correspondence mentioning [identified individuals], FlyLugo, AeroDesign, [identified individuals], Friends of Barnes Airport, [an identified individual], and Exit 3 Aviation, from City officials, including, but not limited to, the following individuals: [list of identified individuals]. [2] The airport commission meeting minutes from May 9th, 2024. On December 5, 2025, the City provided a response. Unsatisfied with the response, the requester petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3602, was opened as a result. On December 6, 2025 and December 18, 2025, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided supplemental responses to this office. 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

Robyn Gay SPR25/3602 Page 2 December 19, 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. Current Appeal In the requester’s appeal petition, the requester contends, “…the City of Westfield has improperly withheld all responsive emails and correspondence from multiple City officials by asserting blanket exemptions that do not apply…. The City failed to provide the required privilege log for claimed attorney-client or work-product exemptions. … The City failed to confirm whether responsive records exist…” The City’s December 5th Response In its December 5, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law and asserted pending litigation, attorney client privilege, and attorney work product to withhold all records responsive to Item [1] of the request. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f). The City provided a record responsive to Item [2] of the request. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. On December 18, 2025, the City provided documentation to this office confirming that administrative proceedings relating to the records at issue are currently pending before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). See [Named Individuals] vs. Westfield Barnes Regional Airport (MCAD Docket No. 23SPR01669); See Wolf Aviation Network, Inc. v. City of Westfield, MA (FAA Docket No. 16-25-15).

Robyn Gay SPR25/3602 Page 3 December 19, 2025 In light of the pending administrative matters, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of the administrative actions could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Wolf Aviation Network