Maguire, Robert v. Uxbridge, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260062)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0062 Steven A. Sette Town Manager Town of Uxbridge 21 South Main Street Uxbridge, MA 01569 Dear Mr. Sette: I have received the petition of Robert Maguire appealing the response of the Town of Uxbridge (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 3, 2025, Mr. Maguire made the following request: …We would like to know the current status of the Insurance Advisory Committee and any planned meeting schedule for this committee given the insurance conversations that are taking place. Additionally, we have noted on the town’s website that the IAC’s last posted meeting/minutes are from several years ago. Has the IAC met more recently than what has been posted online and are there minutes of those meetings available? Lastly, we have been told verbally by [an identified individual] that he plans to not continue as the IAC retiree’s representative... Can you tell us the process/timeline by which [an identified individual] would be replaced so we can advise our interested members[?] We are also reaching out to follow up with you regarding some data points that a member of our group reached out to you about this past summer… Recently, we met with a representative from Mass Retirees who provides advisory services around the state for group health issues and negotiations. They have informed us that MIAA has access to this information that we are interested in and can readily provide it. Therefore, we would like to request this information from you again. The initial details requested include: [1] The number of Uxbridge retirees currently on the Town’s insurance coverage (not Medicare eligible). The cost of those plans both for individuals and couples. The cumulative cost to the town for this group. The annual rate of increase of this coverage over the past three years. 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

Steven A. Sette SPR26/0062 Page 2 January 21, 2026 [2] The number of Uxbridge retirees currently on the Town’s Medicare plans. The cost of those plans for both individuals and couples. The cumulative cost to the town for this group. The annual rate of increase of this coverage over the past three years. [3] The number of active employees on the Town’s health insurance plans. The cost of those plans for both individuals and families. The cumulative cost to the town for this group. The annual rate of increase of these plans for the past three years. In addition, at our last meeting you indicated that you had received guidance from counsel regarding the town’s failure to implement Chapter 38 section 9e which led to the recent Town Meeting article. You have also raised the potential for seeking reimbursement from our senior retirees for past coverage due to the failure of town officials to enact this provision. Please provide us with a copy of any communications that you have received or produced in this regard or any other correspondence with counsel, other Board members or third parties in Town records relating to retiree health insurance including via email or text. Please view this request for information broadly in scope to ensure that we receive relevant informational documents. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3779 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 2, 2026). In my January 2nd determination, I ordered the Town to clarify its claims to withhold certain responsive records under the attorney-client privilege. I also ordered the Town to clarify whether it possesses additional records responsive to the request. Subsequently, I learned that Mr. Maguire made a further request for similar records on December 23, 2025 as follows: Please provide me with a copy along with any supporting documents, letters, emails or other forms of electronic communication related to[:] [1] The proposal for retirees’ insurance benefits presented by town officials at the April 15, 2025 joint Select Board and Finance Committee meeting. [2] Any proposal developed in response to your request for retirees’ data from [an identified individual] in your email to here dated 8/4/25. [3] Any other proposals or plans developed related to reductions of retiree benefits by various town officials. The Town responded on January 5, 2026, January 7, 2026, and January 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Maguire petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0062, was opened as a result.

Steven A. Sette SPR26/0062 Page 3 January 21, 2026 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, January 7th, and January 8th Responses In its January 5, 2026 response, an attorney for the Town continued to cite the attorney- client privilege to withhold certain responsive records. The attorney also stated, “I have confirmed with the Town Manager that all copies of records responsive to Mr. Maguire’s records request that have been located, other than those subject to the Privilege, have been produced.” In the Town’s January 7, 2026 response, the attorney stated: …all responsive records have already been produced… [T]here are no records responsive to Mr. Maguire’s 12/23/25 request that were not already produced. I also sent the request to the Town’s Town Accountant and HR Professional, and both said they had no responsive records to the 12/23/25 request. The Select Board and Finance Committee did hold a joint meeting on April 15, 2025 and discussed issues related to insurance, but there were no written presentations or proposals created for said meeting or otherwise. Mr. Maguire may view that meeting via the Uxbridge Community TV meeting archive, but there are no records responsive to his request and the Town is not obligated to create any such documents. On January 8, 2026, the Town confirmed again, “[t]he 12/23/25 records request sought three categories of records, but as stated in the attached, there are no records responsive to his request beyond what the Town has already provided…”

Steven A. Sette SPR26/0062 Page 4 January 21, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Maguire argued that the attorney-client privilege has been waived as to the withheld records. Additionally, Mr. Maguire stated: It is hard to understand how the Town would not have responsive documents to this simple request as it would be necessary to have this information to formulate any payments through the Town invoicing system for insurance payments to their insurer… It is also unclear to us how it’s possible that the Town does not have any documents responsive to our 12/23/25 request for documents related to the plan presented by Town officials at the April 15, 2025 joint Select Board and Finance committee meeting… No Duty to Create Records Please be advised that under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, 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). Given that the Town has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to Mr. Maguire’s requests outside of the records withheld under the attorney-client privilege, and this office has no authority to compel the Town to create records, I find that this portion of the appeal is resolved. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client's search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapa & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the

Steven A. Sette SPR26/0062 Page 5 January 21, 2026 date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Under the attorney-client privilege, the Town stated: First, it is not disputed that there is an attorney-client relationship between the Town of Uxbridge and KP Law, P.C., as the firm was appointed as Town Counsel by vote of the Uxbridge Select Board. We further submit that the communication(s) at issue are properly covered by the Privilege, in that they involve (1) communications received from Town officials seeking advice and sent to Town officials by attorneys at KP Law, P.C., (2) the communications were sought and made in confidence, and (3) the Privilege as to any such communications has not been waived by the client… While the appeal only requests “a letter from the Town’s attorney” with no date provided, the Privilege is hereby asserted as to the following: [1] January 30, 2025: Email from Town Counsel to Human Resources Professional and Town Manager re: Chapter 32B and retiree health insurance benefits. [2] March 7, 2025: Email from Town Counsel to Human Resources Professional, Town Accountant and Town Manager re: Chapter 32B and potential Town Meeting article. [3] March 7, 2025: Email #2 from Town Counsel to Human Resources Professional, Town Accountant and Town Manager re: Chapter 32B and potential Town Meeting article. [4] May 9, 2025: Email from Town Counsel to Human Resources Professional and Town Manager re: Chapter 32B and Town Meeting article. [5] October 1, 2025: Email from Town Counsel to Town Manager re: Chapter 32B and status of health insurance benefits. The Privilege lasts until the “client” waives its applicability… [T]he Select Board is the “client” for this purpose and only the Select Board may vote to waive the Privilege as to the above records. The Select Board has not done so, and the Privilege remains in effect… Just because one or more Town officials made statements, to Mr. Maguire or otherwise publicly, that generally reference or summarize certain advice provided confidentially by legal counsel does not equate to a waiver of the Privilege as to any or all written communications from counsel on the subject… Upon review, the Town has provided a detailed description of the records withheld, including the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such records, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Further, the Town has satisfied the requirement that that the communications were between a client and an attorney during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney

Steven A. Sette SPR26/0062 Page 6 January 21, 2026 in his or her capacity as such. The Town has also satisfied the requirements that the communications were made in confidence and that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. Therefore, I find that the Town has met its burden to withhold the identified records under the attorney-client privilege. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Maguire 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 of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Maguire Brian W. Riley, Esq.