Kelleher, Christopher v. Brookfield, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20260870)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR26/0870 Michael P. Seery Town Clerk Town of Brookfield 6 Central Street Brookfield, MA 01506 Dear Mr. Seery: I have received the petition of Christopher Kelleher appealing the response of the Town of Brookfield (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 12, 2025, Mr. Kelleher requested “[a] search of the Town Administrator’s official email account(s) for emails sent or received during [an identified individual’s] tenure as Town Administrator that contain the keyword ‘crazy’ (not case- insensitive).” The Town initially responded on December 29, 2025, January 6, 2026, and January 28, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR26/0028 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 20, 2026) and SPR26/0313 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 11, 2026). In my February 11th determination, I ordered the Town to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $200.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The Town responded on February 24, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Kelleher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0870, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Town provided a further response on March 17, 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). 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

Michael P. Seery SPR26/0870 Page 2 March 23, 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. The Town’s February 24th and March 17th Responses In its February 24, 2026 response, the Town clarified its bases for withholding and redacting the responsive records and provided a reduced fee estimate of $158.25. In its March 17, 2026 response, the Town stated that it received Mr. Kelleher’s payment on February 24, 2026 and provided responsive records. The Town additionally noted that it was withholding certain records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and stated: The Town has completed its review of the 245 pages identified during the Town’s initial search for potentially responsive records. Upon review, several e-mails contained in lengthy e-mail chains did not contain the keyword “crazy” but were included in the Town’s search due to the presence of at least one e-mail in the chain that did contain the keyword from your request. Therefore, the number of responsive records was reduced following review to only those e-mails specifically containing the word “crazy”. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Kelleher took issue with the Town’s “improper fee basis” and “inconsistent description of the responsive records,” and stated: Given these discrepancies, I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Records review: [1] whether the Town’s fee was reasonably based on the actual responsive records produced; and [2] whether the Town has adequately explained the results of its search and the reduction in responsive records following payment. In a subsequent email to this office on March 17, 2026, Mr. Kelleher additionally argued, “[t]he Town charged for redaction time on a per-page basis; however, the records produced contain no redactions. Accordingly, it is unclear how the charged redaction time was actually incurred.” It appears Mr. Kelleher is not contesting the Town’s withholding of responsive records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

Michael P. Seery SPR26/0870 Page 3 March 23, 2026 Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please note that although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). In this case, where Mr. Kelleher has already paid the fee, and the Town has provided the responsive records, I am unable to assist Mr. Kelleher in this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Kelleher 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 of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Kelleher