Steeves, Lauren v. Danvers, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260069)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 22, 2026 SPR26/0069 Catherine S. Ellsworth Town Clerk Records Access Officer Town of Danvers One Sylvan Street Danvers, MA 01923 Dear Ms. Ellsworth: I have received the petition of Lauren Steeves appealing the response of the Town of Danvers (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, Ms. Steeves requested the following: Last night the selectboard members referred to a letter they received in their packets from town counsel regarding electronic voting. That letter does not appear to be included in the selectboard packet on the town website. May I have a copy of that letter please? Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3662 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 24, 2025). In my December 24th determination, I ordered the Town to clarify its claims under Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law, and the attorney- client privilege for withholding one responsive record. Subsequently, the Town responded on January 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Steeves petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0069, 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, 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

Catherine S. Ellsworth SPR26/0069 Page 2 January 22, 2026 § 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Steeves contends the following: While the Town provided a copy of the requested memorandum, the document was entirely redacted, and the Town did not provide the detailed justification required by the December 24, 2025 determination. As such, the Town has failed to comply with the Supervisor’s order and the requirements of the Public Records Law. . . . Because the Town’s response does not cure the deficiencies identified in SPR25/3662 and does not comply with the ordered requirements, I respectfully request further review and appropriate relief. The Town’s January 8th Response In its January 8, 2026 response, the Town provides one responsive record in redacted form, and cites the attorney-client privilege for redacting the record. 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. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & 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

Catherine S. Ellsworth SPR26/0069 Page 3 January 22, 2026 Records “shall not inspect the record but 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 date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its January 8th response, the Town provides a redacted copy of the responsive memorandum, and further explains the following: To clarify the Town’s response, there is one record responsive to your request.... Please note that all information exempt from disclosure pursuant to the attorney‐ client privilege has been redacted. The redacted information provides legal advice to the Select Board from Town Counsel regarding the process for implementing electronic voting at Town Meeting and the respective authority of the Select Board, Town Moderator, Town Meeting, and Town Manager concerning electronic voting. This legal advice was shared in confidence to the Select Board and has not been shared with the public, nor has the Select Board authorized its release and/or waived its privilege. Accordingly, the redacted information is attorney‐client privileged and is exempt from disclosure. In this case, although the text of the memorandum was redacted, the Town left intact the header information, which includes the names of the authors and recipients, the date, and the subject of the memorandum. Additionally, in its response, the Town has explained the grounds for claiming the privilege, and has also confirmed that the communications were made in confidence and that the privilege has not been waived. Consequently, I find the Town has met its burden to redact the responsive record pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Steeves 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Lauren Steeves James Donnelly, Esq.