Mirchandani, Annika v. Northborough, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260789)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0789 Daymian Bartek Town Clerk Town of Northborough 63 Main Street Northborough, MA 01523 Dear Ms. Bartek: I have received the petition of Attorney Annika Mirchandani, of Barrault Associates, appealing the response of the Town of Northborough (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 21, 2026, Attorney Mirchandani requested “[a]ll copies of the Executive Session meeting minutes from the Town of Northborough Board of Selectmen Meetings on July 7, 2025 and August 8, 2025.” The Town responded on February 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Attorney Mirchandani petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0789, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, an attorney for the Town provided a further response to this office and Attorney Mirchandani on March 18, 2026. 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. 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. 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

Daymian Bartek SPR26/0789 Page 2 March 19, 2026 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 her appeal petition, Attorney Mirchandani argues the following: Under the Open Meeting Law, a public body must release executive session minutes “when the purpose for which the executive session was held has been served.” M.G.L. c. 30A, § 22(f). The Town has not demonstrated that the purposes of the executive sessions at issue continue to require confidentiality or otherwise justified continued nondisclosure. Moreover, the Public Records Law requires that any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of a record be produced. M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(a); M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26. Even if portions of the minutes contain exempt material, such as attorney-client communications or collective bargaining strategy, the Town remains obligated to redact those portions and produce the remainder of the records. The Town’s categorical denial fails to address this statutory obligation to segregate exempt information and release all non-exempt material. The Town’s February 4th and March 18th Responses In its February 4, 2026 response, the Town states the following: RESPONSE #1: The Town denies your request for the Executive Session meeting minutes for July 7, 2025, because (1) Executive Session meeting minutes are confidential, (2) the Board of Selectmen has not authorized their release, (3) the Executive Session involved Attorney-Client communications and advice, which are privileged under Massachusetts law, and (4) the minutes involve strategy for collective bargaining. RESPONSE #2: The Town denies your request for the Executive Session meeting minutes for August 8, 2025, because (1) Executive Session meeting minutes are confidential, (2) the Board of Selectmen has not authorized their release, (3) the Executive Session involved Attorney-Client communications and advice, which are privileged under Massachusetts law, (4) the minutes involve strategy for collective bargaining, and (5) the minutes also involve negotiation of a lease. In a March 18, 2026 response, an attorney for the Town further explains the following: The Town continues to maintain its position that the July 7, 2025 Executive Session minutes contain strategy for collective bargaining and, therefore, are confidential.

Daymian Bartek SPR26/0789 Page 3 March 19, 2026 In addition, upon further review we have determined that besides collective bargaining strategy, the August 8, 2025 Executive Session minutes involve matters relative to (1) Saint- Gobain and (2) the White Cliffs property, which are currently pending matters and contain information which is privileged under M.G.L. c. 30A, §21(a)(6)[.] . . . Once those matters are completed and the information becomes a public record, the Town will provide Attorney Mirchandani with copies of the August 8, 2025 Executive Session minutes, subject to redaction of any collective bargaining strategy. Open Meeting Law The Town’s response, along with Attorney Mirchandani’s appeal petition raise issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. Consequently, I encourage Attorney Mirchandani to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Mirchandani is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Annika Mirchandani, Esq. D. M. Moschos, Esq.