← Back to Search
Unfiltered, Framingham v. Wayland, Town of (SPR 20260322)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 01-30-2026
ClosedAppeal
SPR 20260322 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Unfiltered, Framingham concerning records held by Wayland, Town of, opened 01-30-2026. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20260322
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Unfiltered, Framingham
- Custodian
- Wayland, Town of
- Date Opened
- 01-30-2026
- Date Closed
- 02-11-2026
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 11, 2026 SPR26/0322 Trudy L. Reid Town Clerk Town of Wayland 41 Cochituate Road Wayland, MA 01778 Dear Ms. Reid: I have received the petition of Framingham Unfiltered (requestor) appealing the response of the Town of Wayland (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 17, 2026, the requestor sought, “[a]ll text messages between [an identified individual] and [t]he town manager 11/1/2025 and 12/31/25.” The Town provided a response on January 29, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0322, 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. See 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a 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 Trudy L. Reid SPR26/0322 Page 2 February 11, 2026 records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s January 29th Response In its January 29, 2026 response, the Town provided the requestor with redacted records. Current Appeal In the requestor’s January 30, 2026 appeal to this office, the requestor stated, “[a]lthough responsive text messages were produced, they were heavily redacted without identification of any specific exemption…” Burden of Specificity 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. Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear which exemption the Town is citing in order to redact the requested 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”). Consequently, the Town must identify the information it redacted from the records, cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to redact the records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide the requestor 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. The requestor may 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: Framingham Unfiltered