Sacco, Esq., Michael v. Worcester, City of - Retirement Board (SPR 20260623)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 5, 2026 SPR26/0623 Rachel Grimaldi Executive Director Worcester Regional Retirement System 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01606 Dear Ms. Grimaldi: I have received the petition of Attorney Michael Sacco appealing the response of the Worcester Regional Retirement System (System/WRRS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 6, 2026, Attorney Sacco requested: . . . any and all contracts or agreements the Worcester Regional Retirement Board, either as an entity or by and through its Chairman, has entered into and/or was in effect with Murphy Hesse Toomey & Lehane LLP (‘MHTL’) for the period of January 1, 2019 through present. Please also provide to me copies of any and all invoices, bills or any documents which set forth the work that MHTL has performed for the WRRB since January 1, 2019 through the present. The System responded on February 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Attorney Sacco petitioned our office and this appeal, SPR26/0623, 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). 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

Rachel Grimaldi SPR26/0623 Page 2 March 5, 2026 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 Sacco contends: . . . The WRRB has refused to provide these public records, citing the attorney- client privilege. . . . While I suspect there is information in those invoices that the WRRB would not wish to be public, there is no exemption in the PRL that allows the WRRB to withhold these documents (nor have they cited any), and even in its most broad application, a legal fee agreement/contract and invoices are not created for the purpose of seeking advice. . . . These documents should be produced, and since they cannot be redacted because they are – once again – not attorney-client communications for the purpose of seeking advice, the WRRB should not charge a fee for their production, as it cannot possibly take more than two (2) hours to locate and send me the documents requested. The System’s February 23rd Response In its February 23, 2026 response, the System withheld responsive records, citing Exemptions (a), (c), and (d) of the Public Records Law, the common law attorney-client privilege, and asserting, “. . . these documents concern issues that are the subject of various pending litigation and administrative agency proceedings between [an identified individual] and WRRS.” The System also provided a fee estimate of $739.58. Pending Litigation and Administrative Proceedings 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:

Rachel Grimaldi SPR26/0623 Page 3 March 5, 2026 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. On March 4, 2026, the System provided the docket numbers of the pending litigation and administrative proceedings. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the pending litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Attorney Sacco’s appeal, is active and ongoing in Worcester Superior Court. See Worcester Regional Retirement System v. Michael Sacco, (Worcester Superior Court Docket No. 2585CV01141) (August 27, 2025). In an email communication between the System and this office on March 5, 2026, the System confirmed that administrative proceedings relating to the records that are the subject of Attorney Sacco’s appeal are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA). See Sacco v. PERAC and WRRB, (DALA Docket No. CR-23-0473) (2023), and Sacco v. WRRB, (DALA Docket No. CR-25-0271) (2025). In light of the pending litigation and administrative proceedings, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a), (c), and (d) of the Public Records Law to the requested records, the applicability of the common law attorney-client privilege, and the reasonableness of the fee estimate. It should be noted that a change in the status of these actions could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Sacco, Esq.