Courtney, Patrick v. Milton, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20260082)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 23, 2026 SPR26/0082 Nicholas J. Milano Records Access Officer Town of Milton 525 Canton Avenue Milton, MA 02186 Dear Mr. Milano: I have received the petition of Patrick Courtney, of Foundation for Fair Contracting of MA, on behalf of Mr. Alex Colonna, appealing the response of the Town of Milton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 8, 2025, Mr. Colonna requested the following: …regarding the new fire station on Adams St, in East Milton. Specifically[:] [1] [T]he most current copy of the prevailing wage determinations. [2] Any and all apprentice information submitted for this site, including apprentice id’s [sic]. The Town responded on December 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Courtney petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0082, 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 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

Nicholas J. Milano SPR26/0082 Page 2 January 23, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Courtney contends, “…the Town of Milton wrongfully redacted employee addresses and apprentice ID information on a certified payroll record and on a Department of Apprentice Standards issued apprentice ID.” It appears Mr. Courtney is not objecting to the redaction of the taxpayer ID numbers. The Town’s December 22nd Response In its December 22, 2025 response, the Town provided certified payroll records and apprentice identification cards in redacted form. The Town asserts, “[r]edactions were made in accordance with the public records law for personal identifying information, including apprentice’s address and tax information.” Certified Payroll Records The Town is advised that disclosure of certified payroll records is governed by G. L. c. 149, § 27B, which states in relevant part: Every contractor, subcontractor or public body engaged in said public works by an agency ... or municipality or any subdivision thereof to which sections twenty- seven and twenty-seven A apply shall keep a true and accurate record of all mechanics and apprentices, teamsters, chauffeurs and laborers employed thereon, showing the name, address and occupational classification of each such employee on said works, and the hours worked by, and the wages paid to, each such employee, and shall submit weekly to the awarding authority by mail, first class postage prepaid, or by electronic mail, certified payroll records that shall consist of a complete copy of those records.... For every week in which an apprentice is employed by a contractor, subcontractor or public body subject to this section, a photocopy of the apprentice’s apprentice identification card, issued pursuant to section 11W of chapter 23, shall be attached to the records submitted under this section. Such records shall be open to inspection by any authorized representative of the department at any reasonable time, and as often as may be necessary. … . . . The above-mentioned copies of payroll records and statements of compliance shall be available for inspection by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority for such inspection and copying.

Nicholas J. Milano SPR26/0082 Page 3 January 23, 2026 G. L. c. 149, § 27B. The statute provides that copies of certified payroll records must be available for inspection and copying by any interested party filing a written request to the awarding authority. Id. The statute does not limit disclosure, but rather evidences a legislative intent to make these records available for inspection. Where the language of the statute does not restrict disclosure, the statutory right of citizens to inspect under the Public Records Law prevails. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn et al., 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979) (statute providing that records be available to town officials does not exempt records since statute does not limit disclosure to the public); see also G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) (exempting those records which are specifically or by necessary implication exempt from disclosure by statute). G. L. c. 149, § 27B evidences a legislative intent to make that information which is required to be provided by a contractor to the awarding authority, open to public inspection. Further, in a 2002 Superior Court case, a construction company hired for a public construction project for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) sought injunctive relief by asserting a privacy claim under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to prevent disclosure of the addresses and telephone numbers of the workers listed on the certified payroll records after the Supervisor of Records issued an order to the MWRA to disclose the records to the requesting party. See D’Amico, Inc., et. al. v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No. 0284-CV-00369 (Nov. 6, 2002). In his April 29, 2002 finding, Judge Thomas Conley denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating, “[t]here is very little likelihood, if any, of the plaintiff prevailing in this matter, and there has been no showing of irreparable harm.” Id. In this case, given that the addresses of the employees who are the subjects of the certified payroll records are public under G. L. c. 149, § 27B, the Town may not withhold this information under any of the exemptions enumerated in the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Further, where the above referenced statute states that “. . . a photocopy of the apprentice’s apprentice identification card . . . shall be attached to the records submitted . . .[,]” it is unclear how the Town can redact information on the apprentice identification cards. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Town must clarify this matter.

Nicholas J. Milano SPR26/0082 Page 4 January 23, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Courtney 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. Courtney may further appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Courtney Alex Colonna