Roman Ramirez, Christian v. Townsend, Town of (SPR 20261025)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 6, 2026 SPR26/1025 Harrison C. Mayotte Town Clerk Town of Townsend 272 Main Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Mr. Mayotte: I have received the petition of Dr. Christian Roman-Ramirez, on behalf of Carla Walter, 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 February 19, 2026, Ms. Walter requested “all revolving account budgets for the last three (3) years per Chairman of the Board of Health.” The Town responded on March 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Dr. Ramirez petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1025, 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 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. 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 SPR26/1025 Page 2 April 6, 2026 Current Appeal In his March 23, 2026 appeal petition, Dr. Roman-Ramirez cites the portion of the Town’s response in which it “acknowledges that responsive records may exist across multiple departments,” and contends that this “[indicates] that the Town, as a whole, has custody of such records.” He further states, “the [Town’s] response should not function as a denial based solely on the Clerk’s Office.” Dr. Roman-Ramirez also takes issue with the “Fund by Fund” list provided by the Town. He notes that the Town’s response “identifies multiple departments where [responses] are [‘]pending,[’] yet no records have been produced” and requests that the Supervisor “[r]equire the Town to produce any existing responsive records[.]” He additionally disputes the portions of the “Fund by Fund” list that “indicate [‘]No Records Responsive[’]” and explains that the Town did not provide “sufficient explanation of the search conducted or the basis for that determination.” Additionally, Dr. Roman-Ramirez objects to the Town’s “[assertion] that the request is burdensome” and maintains that Ms. Walter’s request “is specific and limited to revolving account budgets for a defined three-year period.” The Town’s March 9th Response In its March 9, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged receipt of Ms. Walter’s request and provided the number 2026-0011 for tracking purposes. The Town advised, “no responsive records were identified within the custody of the Town Clerk’s Office. In particular, records related to revolving fund line item budgets are not maintained by [the Town Clerk’s Office].” The Town further explained “that certain categories of responsive records may exist and are expected to be produced” but noted, “[t]he scale and complexity of these tasks unduly burden the . . . duties of departments” that include the Town’s “Recreation Department, Town Administrator/Select Board, Cemetery & Parks Department, Fire-EMS Department, Building Department, [and] Land Use Department.” The Town further claimed, “[a]s such, an extension of time under the Public Records Law is warranted . . . the Town will respond to your request within 25 business days from February 19, 2026.” The Town additionally provided the following “Fund by Fund” list concerning the status of Ms. Walter’s request across various Town departments: 1 - Recycling - Pending 2 - Recreation Programs - No Records Responsive 3 - Facilities Maintenance - Pending 4 - Cemetery - No Records Responsive 5 - Fire Alarm - Pending 6 - Animal Care Program - No Records Responsive 7 - Inspectional Services - Pending 8 - Fire/EMS - Pending

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/1025 Page 3 April 6, 2026 9 - Police - No Records Responsive, Contact Townsend Police Department 10 - Conservation - Pending 11 - Fire/EMS - Pending 12, 13, 14 - Police - No Records Responsive, Contact Townsend Police Department 15 - Town Hall Public Records Requests - Pending The Town also cited Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals and stated, “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. . . .” The Town further requested that Ms. Walter “review [her] request” and “clarify, modify, or provide any updates to [her] request . . . as soon as possible[.]” Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, 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). 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.” (emphasis in original). Upon review, Ms. Walter 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. Walter has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking Possession, Custody, or Control; Diligent Search; Timeliness in Providing Records 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). Based on the Town’s response and Dr. Roman-Ramirez’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Town possesses responsive records. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Town possesses

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/1025 Page 4 April 6, 2026 records responsive to the Town departments associated with Items 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 through 14 of the “Fund by Fund” list provided in the Town’s March 9th response. If the Town does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a 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”). Further, while the Town stated in its March 9th response that “records related to revolving fund line item budgets 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 revolving fund line item budgets” that are responsive to Ms. Walter’s request. As such, it remains unclear whether the Town forwarded the request to any Town departments that may be in possession of responsive records “related to revolving fund line item budgets[.]” The Town must clarify these matters. The Town is additionally reminded that G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days (emphasis added). With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Walter submitted her request on February 19, 2026, and the Town has not provided the responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find that the Town has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, the Town must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Town must provide responsive records on a rolling basis.

Harrison C. Mayotte SPR26/1025 Page 5 April 6, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Walter 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: Carla Walter Dr. Christian Roman-Ramirez