Sawyer, Dianne v. Attleboro, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20260195)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0195 Kathleen M. Jackson Records Access Officer City of Attleboro 77 Park Street Attleboro, MA 02703 Dear Ms. Jackson: I have received the petition of Dianne Sawyer appealing the response of the City of Attleboro (City) 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, Ms. Sawyer requested the following: All text messages, iMessages, emails and any other electronic communications (sent or received) by [an identified] City Councilor including communications with city officials, city hall staff or members of the public for the month of October 2025. This request encompasses records stored on personal devices, provided the content concerns public business. On December 22, 2025, Ms. Sawyer submitted a second public records request as follows: Pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66, §10, I hereby request copies of all emails and electronic communications, including attachments, that relate to City business and that contain one or more of the following keywords: [a list of search terms]. This request includes, but is not limited to, communications sent or received via City-issued email accounts, as well as any non-City or personal email accounts, text messages, Social media and messaging or any electronic messaging platforms used to conduct City business. Please include records created, sent, or received during the period of October 1, 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

Kathleen Jackson SPR26/0195 Page 2 February 3, 2026 2025 through November 15, 2025. The City provided a response to Ms. Sawyer’s December 8th request on December 30, 2025, and provided a response to Ms. Sawyer’s December 22nd request on December 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Sawyer petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0195, 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. Att’y 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. Sawyer contends: … [1] Statutory noncompliance[:] The city has failed to meet the mandatory response deadlines under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(b). No written response, timeline extension, citation of exemption, or fee estimate was issued within 10 business days as required by 950 CMR 32.06(2). [2] Duty to Perform a Good-Faith Search…. [3] Public Business on Personal Accounts[:] … Here, the City’s months-long email outage combined with the absence of a City email for [an identified] Councilor, and the reliance on a campaign/personal email listed on the City’s website, strongly suggests the existence of responsive records outside City custody that have not been retrieved or reviewed. [4] Fragmented or Selective Production[:] [An identified] Councilor provided a few documents only to me, not to the RAO, meaning the RAO did not have custody of all responsive documents – violating the requirement that all responsive materials be processed centrally by the RAO.

Kathleen Jackson SPR26/0195 Page 3 February 3, 2026 The City’s December 22nd and December 30th Responses In its December 22, 2025 response to Ms. Sawyer’s December 22nd request, the City stated: In response to your records request dated December 22, 2025, I have met with our MIS Director and he has stated that the City does not have the software capability to search emails by key words and we still do not have access to our old city email system and that may be a while before we do. Once the MIS team is able to get are old system over to our new system [sic], I will get to you whatever there is to meet your response. In its December 30, 2026 response to Ms. Sawyer’s December 8th request, the City provided responsive records and stated, “I received these documents yesterday from Mr. Lavoie. To date this is all that I have received.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Regarding the second request, where Ms. Sawyer submitted her request on December 22, 2025, it is unclear why the City has not provided the responsive records. 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). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Kathleen Jackson SPR26/0195 Page 4 February 3, 2026 Additional Records Based on the City’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in Ms. Sawyer’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to her December 8th request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the City possesses responsive records regarding “[p]ublic [b]usiness on [p]ersonal [a]ccounts … that have not been retrieved or reviewed.” 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). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Sawyer 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. Ms. Sawyer may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dianne Sawyer