Brower, William v. West Springfield, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20260682)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 12, 2026 SPR26/0682 Kate R. O’Brien Scott, Esq. Chief of Staff and General Counsel Town of West Springfield 26 Central Street, Suite 32 West Springfield, MA 01089 Dear Attorney O’Brien Scott: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the Town of West Springfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 20, 2025, Mr. Brower sought the following from January 1, 2020 to present: [1] All training records, certificates, completion dates, and comprehension assessment for [an identified individual] and any prior West Springfield VSO on Chapter 115 benefits, appeal procedures, public-records law, ethics, professional conduct, and customer-service standards (including mandatory annual training under M.G.L. c. 115 § 3B)[;] [2] Current job description, employment contract, code-of-conduct agreement, and any performance standards signed by [an identified individual] and prior VSOs[;] [3] All internal policies, manuals, or guidance documents (town or EOVS-issued) governing VSO duties, ethical standards, impartiality, appeal assistance, and use of profanity or intimidation toward veterans. Where these documents are publicly available online, please provide the exact URL and document title/code instead of printing copies[;] [4] All complaints, grievances, or disciplinary records against any West Springfield town employee (not limited to the VSO) involving use of profanity, intimidation/retaliation against complainants, or refusal to perform mandatory duties[;] [5] All complaints, grievances, or disciplinary records against any West Springfield town employee (not limited to the VSO) involving use of profanity, intimidation/retaliation against complainants, or refusal to perform mandatory duties[;] 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

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0682 Page 2 March 12, 2026 [6] Any settlements, separation agreements, or monetary payments made by the Town related to the categories in items 4-5[;] [7] Any notices, audits, correspondence, or corrective-action plans from the Executive Office of Veterans’ Services (EOVS) or the Commonwealth regarding training deficiencies, professionalism violations, or reimbursement reductions for the West Springfield VSO office[;] [8] For any complaints or settlements identified in items 4-6, all records describing the resolution process and remedial actions the Town agreed to implement (e.g., training, policy changes, disciplinary measures)[;] [9] Security-camera footage (video and audio, if needed) of the Veterans’ Service Officer area on November 19, 2025, for the entire duration of [an identified individual’s] visit. On December 4, 2025, Mr. Brower provided clarification for his Item 9 request, stating: To clarify and complete the response, I now formally request the following immediately: [1] A complete list, diagram, or inventory of all security cameras (video and/or audio) in West Springfield Town Hall, including exact location (lobby, stairwells, hallways, elevator, second-floor corridors, Mayor’s office suite, City Manager’s office area, Veteran’s Services office, etc.) and whether each camera was recording on November 19, 19 2025[;] [2] If any additional cameras exist beyond the six files already produced and were recording on November 19, 2025 the full footage from the moment I entered the building until I left (approximately 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.), specifically including any footage that would show me attempting to lodge a written complaint at the Mayor’s office or with staff[;] [3] If any responsive footage from additional cameras has been withheld, a detailed privilege/redaction log as required by 950 CMR 32.08(2) identifying each withheld segment, the specific exemption claimed, and the basis for withholding[;] [4] Any internal policies, logs, or retention schedules governing Town Hall security-camera recording, storage, and public-records disclosure[.] On February 14, 2026, Mr. Brower narrowed his Item 5 request, stating: To address the broadness concern for Item 5…and enable a meaningful search, I propose the following reasonable modifications: [1] Limit to Veterans’ Services Office employees only (current and prior VSOs,

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0682 Page 3 March 12, 2026 including but not limited to [an identified individual] and any predecessors)[;] [2] Same time period: January 1, 2020 to present[;] [3] Focus on complaints/grievances/discipline involving unprofessional conduct toward veterans or complainant (profanity, intimidation/retaliation, refusal to assist with appeals or mandatory duties)[;] [4] Include any related resolution records (tie-in to Item 8) or written confirmation of non-existence if none beyond the two previously identified/withheld. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3594 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 19, 2025), SPR25/3848 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 13, 2026), and SPR26/0289 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 12, 2026). In my February 12th determination, I closed the appeal in light of the Town offering reasonable modifications of the scope of Mr. Brower’s November 20th request. The Town provided a response on February 26, 2026, in light of Mr. Brower’s February 14, 2026 modification. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0682, 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 records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s February 26th Response In its February 26, 2026 response, the Town stated, “[t]he Town has reviewed your narrowed request for Item 5. A review of the personnel files of five individuals who have held the Veterans’ Services Officer position from January 1, 2020 to present was conducted. No

Kate R. O’Brien Scott SPR26/0682 Page 4 March 12, 2026 responsive records exist within the scope of your narrowed request…” Current Appeal In his February 26, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Brower objected to the Town’s response, stating, “[t]he Town responded with only: ‘A review of the personnel files … was conducted. No responsive records exist within the scope of your narrowed request.’ This bare assertion, with zero description of the search performed, is deficient…The most direct proof that responsive records must exist is the formal written grievances I sent on directly to Town…officials…” Based on Mr. Brower’s petition and the Town’s response, it is unclear whether the Town possesses any records responsive to Item 5 of Mr. Brower’s request. 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). However, 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). To the extent that responsive records exist, I find the Town must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Brower with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Mr. Brower 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: William Brower