Blankenship, Shawn v. North Brookfield, Town of (SPR 20260388)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 11, 2026 SPR26/0388 Tara M. Hayes Town Clerk Town of North Brookfield 215 North Main Street North Brookfield, MA 01535 Dear Ms. Hayes: On February 4, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Town of North Brookfield (Town) seeking relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Shawn Blankenship. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 17, 2026, Mr. Blankenship requested six categories of records concerning a specified address. On January 20, 2026, Mr. Blankenship requested “[d]ates of all inspections conducted at ... North Main Street for the last 5 years and names of each inspector.” Subsequent to the opening of this petition, on February 11, 2026, Mr. Blankenship also requested the following: “[p]lease provide email for water committee and email for selectman.” Petitions for an Extension of Time and Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from 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

Tara M. Hayes SPR26/0388 Page 2 February 11, 2026 the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Relief from the Obligation to Produce Records In its petition, the Town seeks relief from the obligation to provide responsive records, and argues the following: On January 17 and January 20, I received two public records requests from Mr. Shawn Blankenship. Following those requests, I received an additional 29 emails related to the same matters. For your reference, the first two attachments are the original public records requests, and the remaining attachments are the subsequent emails pertaining to those requests. Mr. Blankenship has a history of submitting repeated and duplicative public records requests, as well as filing multiple appeals with your office alleging noncompliance. To date, those appeals have not been successful. Many of his requests seek records that have already been provided to him on numerous occasions, requiring significant time to review and determine whether any new responsive records exist. Consistent with guidance from your office and my understanding of the Public Records Law, I have responded to duplicative requests by indicating that the records were previously provided and/or that no additional responsive records exist. The volume and tone of the follow-up communications related to these two requests are concerning, particularly given the repeated references to legal action and prosecution. I understand and accept that public employees must manage challenging interactions; however, the ongoing nature and frequency of these communications significantly impact staff time and municipal resources. I am advised that similar issues have arisen with records requests submitted by Mr. Blankenship to the Police Department.

Tara M. Hayes SPR26/0388 Page 3 February 11, 2026 I remain committed to fulfilling all legitimate public records requests in compliance with the law. Mr. Blankenship is welcome to submit requests for records, and those requests will be processed accordingly. That said, the repeated emails accompanying these requests—particularly those that include threats or accusations—are unnecessary and hinder the efficient administration of public records duties. Mr. Blankenship has asserted indigency, and therefore does not pay fees for staff time spent responding to his requests. Further, in an email to this office on February 10, 2026, the Town explains the following: I would like to further demonstrate Mr. Blankenship’s continued harassment. He sent 3 more public records request between Sunday and Monday of this week. And here are the additional emails sent yesterday and today. Again, the threats of prosecution, although I have done nothing wrong, keep being sent to me. By law, I have ten (10) business days to respond to his latest 3 requests, yet I have received the attached. Again, I respectfully request an acknowledgement of the harassment that I am being forced to endure. In a further email to this office on February 11, 2026, regarding Mr. Blankenship’s request for email addresses, the Town explains that “in his continued campaign to intimidate me, I received this last night. He has asked and received the email addresses previously and has emailed all of them.” In light of the Town’s request, to extent that Mr. Blankenship has received records in response to previous requests, the Town is relieved from the obligation to respond to those exact same requests. Conclusion For the reasons described above, I grant the Town’s request for relief of its obligation to provide public records to duplicative requests. Please note that Mr. Blankenship has the right to seek judicial review of an unfavorable decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c).

Tara M. Hayes SPR26/0388 Page 4 February 11, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shawn Blankenship