George and Jen Burden v. Lunenburg, Town of (SPR 20253687)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 29, 2025 SPR25/3687 Jennifer Warren-Dyment Town Manager Town of Lunenburg 17 Main Street Lunenburg, MA 01462 Dear Ms. Warren-Dyment: I have received the petition of George and Jen Burden appealing the response of the Town of Lunenburg (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 19, 2025, Mr. and Ms. Burden requested, “... the certification of the name and addresses of parties in interest for the Town of Lunenburg Planning Board hearing to modify the special permit of the Village at Flat Hill.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2656 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 19, 2025). In my September 19th determination, I ordered the Town to provide Mr. and Ms. Burden with a response to their request. The Town responded on November 16, 2025 and December 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. and Ms. Burden petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3687, 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 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 Warren-Dyment SPR25/3687 Page 2 December 29, 2025 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 16th and December 15th Responses On December 15, 2025, the Town explained, “[t]he Town provided the attached response to the Burdens on November 16, 2025 at 9:14 PM. In that response, that Town attached a request for clarification that was originally sent on August 23, 2025. In the November 16th email I requested that Jennifer and George Burden either forward me their response to the August 23, 2025 email or provide me with the clarification requested so that I may respond to this request.” In the Town’s response dated August 23, 2025, and sent again to Mr. and Ms. Burden on November 16, 2025, the Town stated, “[t]he Town has reviewed your request and does not understand which records you are seeking. Are you are requesting a copy of the actual certified abutters list that was generated in relation to the modification to a special permit? If so, please provide the date of the Planning Board hearing for the matter in question. If this is not the documentation that you are seeking, please provide additional information so that the Town can understand your request.” Current Appeal In their appeal to this office, Mr. and Ms. Burden contend, “[i]t is a fairly straightforward request and we feel Ms. Warren is playing games to avoid providing the documents requested or she is incompetent in n [sic] understanding a simple request.” Preferred Format A records access officer must, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records must be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). In a supplemental response on December 17, 2025, the Town provided responsive records and stated: I believe this to mean that you are requesting the abutters list for the Item 4(g) of the 1/13/25 Public Hearing: “… Flat Hill Rd – Request for Modification to Site Plan Approval[.]” Please confirm this is the document(s) that you are seeking[,]

Jennifer Warren-Dyment SPR25/3687 Page 3 December 29, 2025 2025-01-13 Planning Board Agenda[.] … In reading through the email chain and attachments, it appears that there are no other questions that are outstanding. Please confirm. You responded on December 15, 2025, with a request that, again, did not provide clarification, but was as follows: “… We want the certified list from the town’s Assessor’s office for the 1/13/25 Public Hearing for … Flat Hill Rd entitled Request for Modification to Site Plan Approval. Please provide and stop playing games…[”] Response to Request[:] … The Town has reviewed your request and identified the attached documents which it believes are responsive to this request. However, your failure to clarify your request has required the Town to make assumptions as to the nature of your request. On December 18, 2025, Mr. and Ms. Burden supplemented their appeal, stating, “[w]e are unable to open the town’s response. The file referenced (“RE: SPR25_2656 Appeal Acknowledgement.eml”) does not open, cannot be forwarded, and is unusable. Until the records are actually provided, this appeal must remain open—or a new appeal must be initiated. The town has failed to comply, and we demand enforcement of your order directing them to produce the requested records. … We demand that records be provided in a usable format, such as PDF.” With regard to the responsive records, this office reviewed two emails with attachments that included the responsive records, both of which were sent to Mr. and Ms. Burden’s email address. On December 17th at 6:56 pm, the responsive records were sent as an Outlook email attachment titled “RE: SPR25/2656 Appeal Acknowledgment.” On December 17th at 6:48 pm, the responsive records were sent as a PDF attachment titled “PRR – Burden, 12.17.25- Abutters List.pdf.” Where the Town has provided the responsive records in a PDF format as preferred by Mr. and Ms. Burden, I find the Town has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. and Ms. Burden are not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Jennifer Warren-Dyment SPR25/3687 Page 4 December 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George and Jen Burden