Morais, Jennifer v. Hudson, Town of (SPR 20260032)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 20, 2026 SPR26/0032 Joan M. Wordell Town Clerk Town of Hudson 78 Main Street Hudson, MA 01749 Dear Ms. Wordell: I have received the petition of Jennifer Morais appealing the response of the Town of Hudson (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 26, 2025, Ms. Morais requested: [1] [C]opies of any public records related to [an identified individual’s] permit application for [an identified street address] (conversion to a child care facility)… [2] Emails, memoranda, notes, or reports that mention “[an identified street address]”, “daycare”, “child care”, or [an identified name] in connection with the application. [3] Communications among the Building Commissioner, Planning Board, Planning Department, Town Manager, Select Board, or other staff/consultants regarding zoning, site plan review, parking, plumbing, fire code, or building code determinations for this project. [4] Any staff checklists, review comments, or draft materials related to my application. Subsequently, on September 29, 2025, Ms. Morais modified her request to include the following records: [A]ll internal communications (including ESI) about this project from January 14, 2025 to present as follows: Custodians (including staff/consultants): [5] [B]uilding Department: [an identified individual], former Building Commissioner [an identified individual], plan reviewers. 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

Joan M. Wordell SPR26/0032 Page 2 January 20, 2026 [6] Planning: [an identified individual], Planning Board (incl. [an identified individual]), Planning staff/consultants [7] Town Administration: Town Manager [an identified individual], Select Board members (incl. [an identified individual]), Town Counsel/Municipal Counsel [8] Public Safety: Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Inspector, Police Chief [9] Any other employees/consultants who communicated about [an identified street address] Records sought: [a] Emails (inbox/sent/archives), internal memos/notes, meeting notes, drafts (with non-exempt portions released)[;] [b] Text/iMessage and app messages (e.g., WhatsApp/Signal/Teams/Slack) used for town business, even on personal devices/accounts[;] [c] Calendar entries/invites, attachments (checklists, markups, diagrams), and available metadata (sender, recipients, date/time, subject, file names)[.] Previous Appeals The requested records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2870 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 10, 2025) and SPR25/3246 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 18, 2025). In my November 18th determination, I found that it was unclear if the Town possessed additional records responsive to Ms. Morais’ request. The Town responded on November 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Morais petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0032, 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. 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.

Joan M. Wordell SPR26/0032 Page 3 January 20, 2026 The Town’s November 20th Response On November 20, 2025, the Town provided numerous records responsive to Items 1 through 9, Item a, and Item c of Ms. Morais’ request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Morais contends: Even after multiple supplemental releases, internal communications involving Building Commissioner Berger have not been fully produced. Entire categories of internal emails are still absent, including communications between [an identified individual] and other Town officials and third parties referenced in the record set (for example, communications involving [two identified individuals]). … The Town represented in its October 14 summary that [an identified individual] had already provided all responsive communications on September 30. Yet late releases introduced new custodians and new emails involving [an identified individual] that were absent from earlier productions. No Duty to Create Records 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). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). In a telephone conversation between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the Town on January 12, 2026, the Town confirmed it has no additional records responsive to the request. Conclusion Where the Town confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Morais’ request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Morais is 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).

Joan M. Wordell SPR26/0032 Page 4 January 20, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jennifer Morais