Peter Herridge v. Truro, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20253864)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR25/3864 Kelly Clark Town Clerk Town of Truro 24 Town Hall Road Truro, MA 02666 Dear Ms. Clark: I have received the petition of Peter Herridge appealing the response of the Town of Truro (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 13, 2025, Mr. Herridge requested “…copies of any and all public communications (including texts, documents, notes, emails, mail and conversation notes) and attachments thereto initiated and/or received between May 1, 2023 and July 1, 2024.” Specifically, Mr. Herridge sought: [1] Any communications to, from or copying (directly or by blind copy) [an identified individual] with Town of Truro officials, staff and committee members including but not limited to [eight identified individuals]. [2] Any communications to, from or copying (directly or by blind copy) [an identified individual] with Town of Truro officials, staff and committee members including but not limited to [eight identified individuals]. [3] Any and all communications regarding voter registration and get out the vote efforts in Truro, Massachusetts during the specified period of time. [4] Any and all communications to, from or copying (directly or by blind copy) [an identified individual] or employees or Board members of the Community Development Partnership regarding housing, voter registration or get out the vote efforts in Truro Massachusetts during the specified period of time. [5] Any and all communications to, from or copying (directly or by blind copy) anyone from Attainable Housing or Highland Affordable Housing regarding 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

Kelly Clark SPR25/3864 Page 2 January 15, 2026 housing, voter registration and get out the vote efforts in Truro Massachusetts during the specified period of time. [6] Any communications during the specified period of time from [three identified individuals] to, from or copying (directly or by blind copy) any employee or freelancer at Cape Cod Times regarding voter registration or get out the vote efforts in the Town of Truro including but not limited to [two identified individuals]. [7] Any communications during the specified period of time from [three identified individuals] to, from or copying (directly or by blind copy) any employee or writer at the Provincetown Independent regarding voter registration or get out the vote efforts in the Town of Truro including but not limited to [two identified individuals]. In the case of [seven identified individuals], please ensure your search includes any email or mobile phone for which communications are in the Town’s possession irrespective if these use personal or official email address or phone. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/0967 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 23, 2025). In my April 23rd determination, I ordered the Town to provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and to provide the responsive records on a rolling basis. Following further correspondence with Mr. Herridge, the Town responded on August 15, 2025, September 25, 2025, October 24, 2025, October 29, 2025, November 7, 2025, and November 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Herridge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3864, 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 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record.

Kelly Clark SPR25/3864 Page 3 January 15, 2026 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 Responses In its August 15, 2025 response, the Town provided a link to responsive records, redacted pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. The Town further stated that the request was “fulfilled and closed.” In a reply to the Town on September 15, 2025, Mr. Herridge argued that certain requested records remained outstanding and took issue with the Town’s lack of timeliness, search output and accessibility of the records, and claims of privilege. On September 25, 2025, the Town sought clarification of the specific records Mr. Herridge was still seeking and asked him to flag the documents he believed were not subject to the attorney-client privilege for the Town to reassess. Mr. Herridge provided the requested clarification on September 30, 2025, and sent follow-up inquiries to the Town on October 8, 2025 and October 21, 2025. In its October 24, 2025 response, the Town stated, “your new request was sent… [to] the staff who manage the records you requested. I will follow up with them today and let you know as soon as I hear something back.” Following a further update inquiry from Mr. Herridge, the Town stated on October 29, 2025, “[t]his is in the Town Managers queue. I will defer to her on your request for an ETA.” In its November 7, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[y]our request is in the Town Managers queue for privilege review and approval of release.” In its November 10, 2025 response, the Town provided Mr. Herridge with a copy of the message it sent to its IT Director, asking the director to re-run specific searches for responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Herridge stated, “[d]espite email reminders about the lack of fulfillment, I have received no response at all since an assurance in early November that the Town did, indeed, intend to fulfill its responsibilities and promise to conduct a search de novo… [P]roduction has been woefully incomplete, non-responsive and non-compliant.” In a subsequent email to this office on December 30, 2025, Mr. Herridge clarified that he is not yet appealing the Town’s claims of attorney-client privilege and stated, “[o]nce full

Kelly Clark SPR25/3864 Page 4 January 15, 2026 production is received… I reserve the right to raise questions regarding the potentially improper claims of attorney-client privilege.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Herridge’s request was submitted on February 13, 2025, and the Town has not completed providing the responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding the remaining records, I find the Town has not met its burden in responding to the request in a complete fashion in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, the Town must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the remaining responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Town must continue to provide remaining responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Herridge with a response to the 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. Mr. Herridge may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kelly Clark SPR25/3864 Page 5 January 15, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Peter Herridge