Churchville, Maryjane v. Townsend, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260106)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0106 Harrison C. Mayotte Town Clerk Town of Townsend 272 Main Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Mr. Mayotte: I have received the petition of Maryjane Churchville appealing the response of the Town of Townsend (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 2, 2025, Ms. Churchville requested: [1] All text messages sent to or from [an identified individual] during the Historic District Commission meeting held on June 5, 2025, including fifteen (15) minutes before the meeting convened and fifteen (15) minutes after adjournment . . .[;] [2] All call logs for incoming and outgoing calls to or from [an identified individual] during the same period (15 minutes before, during, and 15 minutes after the meeting). . . . Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3465 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 9, 2025). In my December 9th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the Town possesses responsive records. Specifically, I noted where Town business may have been conducted using a personal device, it was unclear whether any responsive records were created in furtherance of Town business within the specified period using the personal device. Subsequently, the Town responded on January 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Churchville petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0106, was opened as a result. 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

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/0106 Page 2 January 27, 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 6th Response In its January 6, 2026 response, the Town stated that it did not possess records responsive to Ms. Churchville’s request and further provided the following: [An identified individual] has acknowledged that text messages and/or call records existed on her personal device during the relevant time period surrounding the June 5, 2025 Historic District Commission meeting and that those records were deleted prior to the Town’s response to your public records request. As a result, the Town is unable to produce those records because they no longer exist. The Town is not asserting that no records were ever created; rather, the Town’s position is that responsive records once existed and were deleted and therefore cannot be produced. Current Appeal In her November 24, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Churchville objects to the Town’s January 6th response and contends that the Town’s “[admission] . . . that responsive public records existed and were deleted . . . fundamentally changes the posture of this matter.” She states, “a public official [may not] lawfully delete records created in the course of public business, especially once a records request was foreseeable, if not already pending” and further notes, “[t]he Town’s attempt to recast this admission as a harmless [‘]no records exist[’] response is legally indefensible.”

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/0106 Page 3 January 27, 2026 Records Management Public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). For further guidance in records management and retention, the Town may contact the Records Management Unit (RMU) at 617-727-2816. The RMU operates under the authority of the Supervisor of Records, assisting state and local government entities in creating, managing, securing, and preserving records needed to conduct business and protect the rights and obligations of citizens and government. Training workshops on records management are conducted upon request. Where the Town states that responsive records “were deleted prior to the Town’s response to [Ms. Churchville’s] public records request[,]” I find that the Town must institute safeguards to ensure that all records are retained in accordance with both applicable law as well as the retention schedules promulgated by this office. G. L. c. 66, §§ 1, 8, 13, 15. I advise the Town to review the records retention materials available online at www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm. Conclusion Accordingly, whereas the requested records no longer exist, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Churchville 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: Maryjane Churchville