Cluck, Miles v. Whitman, Town of - Office of the Town Clerk (SPR 20261114)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 8, 2026 SPR26/1114 Dawn M. Varley Town Clerk/Records Access Officer Town of Whitman 54 South Avenue Whitman, MA 02382 Dear Ms. Varley: I have received the petition of Miles Cluck appealing the response of the Town of Whitman (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 2, 2026, Mr. Cluck requested the following records “from January 1, 2015 through the date the program vacated the building[:]” [A]ny correspondence, notices, emails, letters, or memoranda between the Town of Whitman and the Head Start program or its operating agency regarding the closure or planned closure of the Head Start program at the Corthell School. . . . Please include records held by the Town Administrator’s Office, School Department, and any relevant boards or committees. The Town responded on February 3, 2026 and March 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses and claiming to not yet have received responsive records, Mr. Cluck petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1114, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the Town provided a supplemental response to Mr. Cluck and this office in an email on March 27, 2026, which included responsive records. Mr. Cluck further appealed the Town’s supplemental response in an email to the Town and this office on the same date. 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

Dawn M. Varley SPR26/1114 Page 2 April 8, 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 Responses In its February 3, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged receipt of Mr. Cluck’s request and noted that its response “will take some time as [the Town] will need to gather information, if any from other departments, boards, and committees.” Following the Town’s above correspondence, in an email to the Town on March 9, 2026, Mr. Cluck asked if the Town “[c]ould . . . provide an estimated timeline for when records may be available[.]” In its March 10, 2026 response, a representative of the Town replied to Mr. Cluck’s above inquiry and stated, “[the Town] will plan to reach out to you by the end of business on Friday March 13th with what we have gathered thus far.” In its supplemental March 27, 2026 response, a Town representative provided six pages of records and noted that while the Town “[created] the pdf” containing the records “on March 13, 2026[,]” the Town “failed to send it along” due to “an oversight[.]” Upon review, the records contain correspondence between representatives of the Town and Self Help, Inc. Specifically, the records include a two-page letter dated October 15, 2025, from Town Counsel to Self Help, Inc., regarding the “Termination of Lease and Use and Occupancy Arrangement” of the “Corthell Building[.]” The records also contain four additional pages of email correspondence between Town representatives and a representative of Self Help, Inc. from December 10, 2025 to December 12, 2025, and concern “public meetings held by Self-Help” in April of 2024 and “the Head Start Corthell School closing[.]” Current Appeal In his March 26, 2026 appeal, Mr. Cluck states that the Town’s “failure to respond to [his] public records request” violated “the 10-business-day response requirement under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10.” In his further appeal of the Town’s supplemental March 27th response, Mr. Cluck contends that the “October 2025 letter from Town counsel [to] Self-Help . . .” and the “December 2025 email exchange between Town Administrator [sic] and Self-Help . . .” do “not

Dawn M. Varley SPR26/1114 Page 3 April 8, 2026 appear to be responsive” to his request. He states that the records provided by the Town in its supplemental March 27th response “are helpful context,” but notes that “they are outgoing correspondence and follow-up inquiries - not internal Town decision-making documents.” He additionally requests the Town “confirm . . . in writing” if “no such internal documents exist[.]” Public Records Requests; Petitions to the Supervisor Mr. Cluck is reminded that a requestor may petition the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) only after a written request has been made to the records access officer (RAO) of the governmental entity that creates or receives the records. 950 C.M.R. 32.01(1). Additionally, the written request must reasonably describe the public records sought. Id. Where Mr. Cluck’s February 2nd request sought “any correspondence, notices, emails, letters, or memoranda between the Town of Whitman and the Head Start program or its operating agency regarding the closure or planned closure of the Head Start program at the Corthell School” within a specified timeframe and not “internal Town decision-making documents” as described in his further appeal of the Town’s supplemental March 27th response, I am unable to opine on this matter. If Mr. Cluck would like to obtain copies of the records described in his further appeal of the Town’s supplemental March 27th response, he is advised that he should make a separate public records request to the Town’s RAO. Mr. Cluck may then appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See id.; see also Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2. (January 23, 2019) (holding that “[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”). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Cluck 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: Miles Cluck