Liacos, Luke v. Auburn, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260112)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0112 Stephen Coleman Records Access Officer Town of Auburn 104 Central Street Auburn, MA 01501 Dear Mr. Coleman: I have received the petition of Attorney Luke Liacos, on behalf of North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters, appealing the response of the Town of Auburn (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 24, 2025, Attorney Liacos requested the following records: [1] A Copy of the Public Advertisement/Posting for the above referenced Project. [2] A Copy of the Respondents to the Request for Qualifications for the above- referenced Project. [3] A Copy of the Schedule, Administrative, and Construction for the above referenced Project. [4] A list of the Building Committee members and their Contact information for the above referenced Project. [5] A Copy of the Complete CM/GC SOQs for the above-referenced project qualified or not. [6] A Copy of the SOQ Evaluation scorecards for the CM/GC SOQs for the above-referenced project. The Town responded on December 22, 2025, January 6, 2026, and January 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Attorney Liacos petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0112, was opened as a result. On January 23, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a further response. 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 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

Stephen Coleman SPR26/0112 Page 2 January 27, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Liacos contends: … Specifically at issue in this appeal is the request for copies of the scorecards or scoresheets for all general contractors that submitted statements of qualification (SOQs) in connection with the project. The Town issued a partial response to NASRCC in December 2025, but did not produce the scorecards of the general contractors. On December 16, 2025, NASRCC again requested the scorecards/scoresheets (Attachment 2). The Town refused to provide the scorecards (Attachment 3). The Town has not cited any exemption under the Public Records Statute, G.L. c. 66, Section 10. … The Town’s Responses In its December 22, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[a]fter speaking with Bid Doc’s we by law cannot forward the individual score matrix to you. It is only allowed to be sent to a filed subcontractor or general contractor that asks for their scores only.” On January 6, 2026, the Town asserted the following: I have reached out to Bid Doc’s and the AG office for guidance. Below is each statue [sic] and specific guidelines that we must follow. We have provided the total scores related to the Sub-Contractors and General Contractors as previously requested. If you review 810 CMR 9 and 810 CMR 10 below the documentation clearly outlines who and how the requests can be made by.

Stephen Coleman SPR26/0112 Page 3 January 27, 2026 As discussed in our telephone conversation this morning, attached are the excerpt [sic] from 810 CMR 9 and 10 that restricts who can view the final consensus scorecard. Note: The statute is specific that the proposer may request their scorecard only – “its”, provided that the proposer submitted a SOQ. … 810 CMR 9 - General Contractor 9.11: Entitlement to Evaluation Score/Right of Appeal (1) Upon written request to the Awarding Authority, any interested General Contractors, that submitted a SOQ for the purpose of being prequalified to submit a general bid on a Building Project shall be entitled to obtain its prequalification evaluation score, whether prequalified or not. (2) The decision of the Prequalification Committee shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal except on grounds of arbitrariness, capriciousness, fraud or collusion. The burden shall be on the appealing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence that such arbitrariness, capriciousness, fraud or collusion existed. … In its January 12, 2026 response, the Town stated, “[a]lthough union Council may disagree with my position, it is what is laid out in the statue [sic] of what can and should be provided. The town has provided the final scores as requested.” Burden of Specificity On January 23, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a further explanation, stating, “…I informed him that after further investigation, I provided specific guidelines as to who could be requesting the documentation and how it could be obtained. I also provided the actual statue [sic] language that I felt pertained to their request…” In this case, the Town has not met its burden in responding to the request. The Town is advised that under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. See 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; 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). Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Town is citing in order to withhold the requested records. Consequently, the Town must explain the specific exemption or exemptions that apply.

Stephen Coleman SPR26/0112 Page 4 January 27, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Attorney Liacos 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. Attorney Liacos 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: Luke Liacos, Esq.