Rovan, Andrew v. Stow, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20260024)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 20, 2026 SPR26/0024 Denise M. Dembkoski Town Administrator Town of Stow 380 Great Road Stow, MA 01775 Dear Ms. Dembkoski: I have received the petition of Andrew Rovan appealing the response of the Town of Stow (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 22, 2025, Mr. Rovan requested the following: [T]he following public records relating to the Conservation Commission’s December 16, 2025 open session and the letter issued by the Commission dated December 17, 2025, concerning [a specified address], Stow, Massachusetts. . . . 1. December 16, 2025 Open Session Materials All materials presented to, reviewed by, or relied upon by the Conservation Commission during its December 16, 2025 open session relating to [the specified address], including but not limited to: • meeting packets • memoranda • staff reports • presentations • exhibits • draft findings and draft minutes • draft enforcement language • draft votes • notes or summaries distributed to Commissioners 2. Recordings and Transcripts *All audio and/or video recordings of the December 16, 2025 open session, including any transcripts, drafts of transcripts, or contractor‑produced transcript materials. 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

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR26/0024 Page 2 January 20, 2026 3. Communications Relating to [the specified address] All communications relating to [the specified address] between any Conservation Commission member and: • Conservation staff • the Town Administrator • Town Counsel • DEP occurring between November 16, 2025 and the present, including communications concerning: • enforcement posture • draft correspondence • jurisdictional basis • wetland classification • site visits • preparation for the December 16, 2025 meeting 4. December 17, 2025 Letter – Drafts and Development All drafts of the letter issued by the Conservation Commission dated December 17, 2025, including: • preliminary drafts • internal revisions • redlines • tracked‑change versions • comments • version histories • internal approvals or sign‑offs All such draft materials shall be produced in native electronic format with all associated metadata preserved, including but not limited to: • date and time created • date and time last modified • author • last editor • file path • version history • document properties • tracked‑changes data (if applicable) 5. Draft Enforcement and Jurisdictional Materials All draft enforcement documents, draft jurisdictional analyses, draft determinations, draft findings, and draft votes relating to [the specified address] that were created, reviewed, or circulated before, during, or after the December 16, 2025 meeting. All such materials shall be produced in native electronic format with metadata preserved as described in Section 4 above. 6. Post‑Meeting Record Clarification

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR26/0024 Page 3 January 20, 2026 For the avoidance of doubt, this request includes records created before, during, and after the December 16, 2025 meeting that reflect the basis for the Commission’s vote and the contents of the December 17, 2025 letter, including records created after the meeting that memorialize, justify, revise, or explain the vote. 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. 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 January 5th Response In its January 5, 2026 response, the Town provides numerous responsive records, and explains the following: Using [a specified] link please find non-privileged records responsive to this request, including the meeting packet, draft minutes, draft enforcement letter, Zoom-related records, and additional letters. The Town has produced those records at no charge to you as a courtesy relative to this request on this occasion only. Please note that there are also publicly available documents available on the Town’s website . . . You can access those documents by selecting the category “Conservation Commission” from the “Select a Category” drop-down menu and navigating to the December 22, 2025 meeting date, available at no charge. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rovan argues the following: The records sought include drafts and communications involving Town Counsel

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR26/0024 Page 4 January 20, 2026 relating to a letter and enforcement posture that were discussed, relied upon, and referenced in an open public meeting of the Conservation Commission. . . . Despite this public use, the Town has neither produced the responsive records nor acknowledged waiver, instead asserting generally that it has produced only “non- privileged records.” . . . The Town did not produce the Zoom meeting transcript for the December 16, 2025 meeting. The Town has produced transcripts for other meetings in response to prior requests and has produced the recording of this meeting, confirming that the content exists and is known. . . . Several records were not produced in native electronic format despite being created, maintained, and circulated electronically. This issue has been raised and addressed in prior appeals, yet the Town continues to provide converted or flattened versions without justification. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on the Town’s response, and the information provided in Mr. Rovan’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Town possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Rovan’s request. 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) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Rovan 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. Rovan may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Denise M. Dembkoski SPR26/0024 Page 5 January 20, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Rovan