Crum, Karen v. Hopkinton, Town of - Town Clerk's Office (SPR 20260836)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0836 Connor B. Degan Town Clerk Town of Hopkinton 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Dear Mr. Degan: I have received the petition of Karen Crum appealing the response of theTown of Hopkinton (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 31, 2026, Ms. Crum requested, “[p]lease provide me with the reason Hopkinton hired Sarah Worley Conflict Resolution PC, plus any and all reports, documents, email correspondences and/or texts in reference to the work that was done in relation to Hopkinton’s payment to Sarah Worley Conflict Resolution PC on 3/22/2021 for $27,270. It is invoice #00365103.” The Town responded on November 10, 2025 and December 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Crum petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0836, 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the 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

Connor B. Degan SPR26/0836 Page 2 March 19, 2026 burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). 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 Town’s November 10th and December 8th Responses In its November 10th, 2025 response, the Town stated, “[t]he Town is not required to answer questions, do research, or create documents in response to your request or any follow-up thereto… As for the second part of your request, due to the magnitude and difficulty of your request, the Town is unable to search for, compile, reproduce, and, if necessary, redact and/or segregate the responsive records within the statutory 10-business-day timeframe. Therefore, pursuant to G.L. c. 66, §10(b)(vi), the Town is extending said timeframe by 15 business days – making the new due date for the Town’s response December 8, 2025.” In its December 8, 2025 response, the Town asserted: As noted in its November 10, 2025 correspondence, the Town is not required to answer questions, do research, or create documents in response to your request or any follow-up thereto… In addition, please be advised that G. L. c. 66, §10(a)(i) requires that public records requests “reasonably describe” the records sought. Requests that are “broad, sweeping”; that lack “specificity”; and that make “no effort to define or limit the records sought” fail to meet this standard. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 816-820 (2024). Put another way by the Superior Court in Chawla v. Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue, 1784CV02087 at *2 (Mass. Super. Jan. 23, 2019): … Here, as in Chawla, the language of your request is very broad and calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of your request and make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials you requested. You have therefore failed to satisfy the statutory standard. Accordingly, the Town requests that you modify your request to reasonably describe the records you seek, such as narrowing the timeframe during which the responsive records were created, specifying who created and/or received them, and specifying what part of the “work that was done” you are referring to.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Crum contends, “[t]he Town waited until the final day of their requested extension, only to tell me my request was too broad. I respectfully request that you order the Town to comply with my request immediately.”

Connor B. Degan SPR26/0836 Page 3 March 19, 2026 In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). The Superior Court has found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consequently, this office encourages Ms. Crum and the Town to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. Crum may wish to clarify or narrow the scope of her request. The Town must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing

Connor B. Degan SPR26/0836 Page 4 March 19, 2026 any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Crum and the Town communicate further as described above, Ms. Crum may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Karen Crum