Forcier, Bruce v. South Hadley, Town of - Fire District (SPR 20260569)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 3, 2026 SPR26/0569 Kari Scytkowski Records Access Officer South Hadley Fire District 144 Newton Street South Hadley, MA 01075 Dear Ms. Scytkowski: I have received the petition of Bruce C. Forcier appealing the response of the South Hadley Fire District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 10, 2026, Mr. Forcier requested, “[c]opies of public records reflecting all legal fees incurred by Fire District No. 1 / Water District No. 1 and paid to [an identified individual] for the period December 16, 2025 through February 1, 2026 … [including]”: [1] All invoices, billing statements, and itemized time records[;] [2] Records of payments made, including dates, amounts, check numbers, or electronic payment confirmations[;] [3] Any engagement letters, amendments, or fee agreements in effect during this period (if not previously provided)[;] [4] Any records reflecting amounts currently owed but not yet paid for services rendered within this timeframe[.] The District responded on February 18, 2026. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Mr. Forcier petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0569, was opened as a result. Subsequently on February 24, 2026, the District provided a supplemental response which Mr. Forcier appealed. 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 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

Kari Scytkowski SPR26/0569 Page 2 March 3, 2026 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 District’s February 18th and February 24th Responses In its February 18, 2026 response, the District states, “[r]eview of the files indicates that this records request overlaps previously submitted records requests dated November 19, 2025, and December 15, 2025. There are no responsive records.” Also in its February 18, 2026 response, the District stated, “[a]ll relevant records to the extent they show amounts spent on all District legal invoices specifically related to your appeal are attached. The records insofar as they contain entries itemizing the exact legal services rendered are being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege.” In its February 24, 2026 response, the District asserted, Mr. Forcier’s request is directly related to ongoing litigation in which he is the plaintiff in Hampshire Superior Court, Docket No. 2480CV00009. In his original communication, Mr. Forcier requested “copies of public records reflecting all legal fees incurred by Fire District No.1/Water District No. 1 regarding SPR22-1997 and 2480CV00009 and paid to Sullivan, Hayes & Quinn, LLC, including services performed by Attorney Brendan Hughes, for the period of September 26, 2025, through February 9, 2026.” I responded to that request by stating that there were no responsive records. I would also note that this request substantially overlaps with two prior requests received on November 19, 2025, and December 15, 2025. Current Appeal In his February 18, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Forcier contends, [1] Financial Records Must Exist If Services Were Performed…The requested

Kari Scytkowski SPR26/0569 Page 3 March 3, 2026 matters involve active litigation and ongoing legal representation. If legal services were performed during the requested period, responsive public records would include, but are not limited to: Attorney invoices Payment records, Warrants or check registers, Accounts payable records, Encumbrances or general ledger entries[;] [2] Failure to Address Pending or Unpaid Obligations… Even if invoices have not yet been paid, records reflecting obligations, pending payments, or accrued legal expenses constitute public records subject to disclosure[;] [3] Improper Characterization of the Request… In both the written response and accompanying email, the District characterizes the request as being “[an identified individual].” My request sought District legal expenditure records, not personnel records or records concerning any individual employee. This characterization improperly narrows and reframes the scope of the request[;] [4] Inconsistent Treatment of Similar Requests… In a companion response issued the same date, the District produced legal fee totals for another attorney involved in the same litigation while withholding only privileged narrative descriptions. The complete denial of records for [identified individuals] is inconsistent with that treatment[.] Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Upon review of the court’s docket, I find that the matter is active and ongoing in the Hampshire Superior Court. See Forcier, Bruce v. Eden du Perier et al, Docket No. 2480CV00009. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bruce Forcier