King, Cindy v. Townsend, Town of (SPR 20260881)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2026 SPR26/0881 Harrison C. Mayotte Town Clerk Town of Townsend 272 Main Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Mr. Mayotte: I have received the petition of Cindy King appealing the response of the Town of Townsend (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 29, 2026, Ms. King requested the following: [1] . . . [C]opies of all Liability Insurance policies in force between 7-1-2015 and the current policy. I do not need the current policy . . . [;] [2] . . . [A]ny contracts signed by the SB/BOS for all of the policies above[;] [3] . . . [A]ny documents, letters, regarding coverage of the liability insurance created since 7-1-2025 for any pending litigation. The Town responded on January 29, 2026, February 12, 2026, and March 12, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Ms. King petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0881, 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(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 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

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/0881 Page 2 March 25, 2026 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 January 29th, February 12th, and March 12th Responses In its January 29, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged receipt of Ms. King’s request and provided the number 2026-0005 for tracking purposes. The Town additionally stated the following regarding Ms. King’s description of the records sought in her request: G. L. c. 66, §10(a)(i) requires that public records requests “reasonably describe” the records sought. Requests that are “broad [and] sweeping”; that lack “specificity”; and that make “no effort to define or limit the records sought” fail to meet this standard. Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 816-820 (2024). Please review the request you submitted. If you are able to clarify, modify, or provide any updates to your request, please do so as soon as possible. In its February 12, 2026 response, the Town provided one responsive record in the form of a six-page “Coverage Disclaimer” letter to the Town dated January 16, 2026 from Evanston Insurance Company and further indicated, “no responsive records were identified within the custody of the Town Clerk’s Office. In particular, records related to insurance are not maintained by [the Town Clerk’s Office].” The Town additionally stated the following regarding its intent to produce additional records within twenty five (25) business days of its receipt of Ms. King’s request, as allowed under G. L. c. 66 § 10(b)(vi), and reiterated the portion of its January 29, 2026 response concerning Ms. King’s description of the records sought in her request: The Town . . . has determined that certain categories of responsive records exist and are expected to be produced, including insurance policies. However, the breadth of the request requires coordination across multiple departments and the retrieval of archived materials. The scale and complexity of these tasks unduly burden the other statutory and administrative duties of the . . . Townsend Town Administrator, Townsend Select Board. As such . . . responsive records will be provided on a rolling basis as they become available. . . . In accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 66, § 10), the Town will respond to your request within 25 business days from January 29, 2026. . . . G. L. c. 66, §10(a)(i) requires that public records requests “reasonably describe” the records sought. Requests that are “broad [and] sweeping”; that lack “specificity”; and that make “no effort to define or limit the records sought” fail to meet this standard. Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 103

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/0881 Page 3 March 25, 2026 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 816-820 (2024). Please review the request you submitted. If you are able to clarify, modify, or provide any updates to your request, please do so as soon as possible. In its first of two March 12, 2026 responses, the Town again provided the responsive six- page “Coverage Disclaimer” letter from Evanston Insurance Company that it provided in its above February 12, 2026 response, as well as an additional responsive record in the form of a five-page “Disclaimer of Coverage” letter dated October 15, 2025 from Glatfelter Claims Management, Inc. In its second and final March 12, 2026 response, a representative for the Town claimed, “[p]er my discussion with the Town Administrator . . . , the [Town’s first March 12, 2026] response . . . marks a complete production of these Town Administrator/Select Board records.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court 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). Upon review, Ms. King has provided specific descriptions for the categories of records, including a timeframe and the specific types of documents she seeks in her request. While the request may result in a large volume of responsive records, Ms. King has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking. Current Appeal In her March 12, 2026 appeal petition, Ms. King notes that the Town “has not provided the liability insurance policies from 2015 up to and not including the current policy in force.” She further states, “[t]he town has not demonstrated good faith to provide” responsive records on a “rolling [basis] as stated in their [February 12, 2026] letter.” Possession, Custody, or Control; Diligent search Based on the Town’s responses, in conjunction with Ms. King’s appeal, it is unclear if the Town possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Town possesses additional records responsive to “the liability insurance policies from 2015 up to and not including the current policy in force[.]” 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). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/0881 Page 4 March 25, 2026 custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Further, while the Town advised that “records related to insurance are not maintained by [the Town Clerk’s Office][,]” the Town must use its superior knowledge of the records, and forward the request to the appropriate Department(s) within the Town that may have possession, custody, or control of “records related to insurance” that are responsive to Ms. King’s request. As such, it remains unclear whether the Town forwarded the request to any Town departments other than the “Townsend Town Administrator . . . [and the] Townsend Select Board” that may be in possession of responsive records “related to insurance[.]” The Town must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. King with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cindy King