Palches, Peter v. Oak Bluffs, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20261145)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 8, 2026 SPR26/1145 Wendy Brough Assistant Town Administrator Town of Oak Bluffs 56 School Street Oak Bluffs, MA 02557 Dear Ms. Brough: I have received the petition of Peter Palches appealing the response of the Town of Oak Bluffs (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 16, 2026, Mr. Palches requested, “[c]opies of bills from Town Counsel to the Town of Oak Bluffs for services provided from January 1024 [sic] until the present, including any and all wording describing the topics covered and the type of legal services provided.” On March 24, 2026, Mr. Palches further clarified that he was “not restricting [his] request to one property” and “asked for all the invoices.” Mr. Palches asked the Town to “[p]lease comply with my original request within the ten-day period following my request.” The Town provided its initial response on March 24, 2026, and provided further responses on March 25, 2026 and March 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Palches petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1145, 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. 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

Wendy Brough SPR26/1145 Page 2 April 8, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Palches contends the following: I had asked to see copies of all the invoices from Town Counsel to the Town during the period January 2024 to the present. Here are my reasons for the appeal: The town acknowledges that what I request are public records. The bills are submitted by a respected law firm fully aware that they are public records and will be seen by town employees during payment processing. Delicate matters requiring confidentially are therefore not included in the invoices I have requested. The town suggests that it will, and has, searched for anything I might be looking for and provided it to me. In a sense the town is saying, “You don’t need what you asked for because we’ve already looked and there’s nothing there.” I would rather look at the invoices myself and decide if this public information has value to me. I believe I have a right to do so. Based on Mr. Palches appeal petition, he does not appear to be appealing the redactions to the responsive record. The Town’s Responses On March 24, 2026, the Town provided a responsive record in redacted form. On March 25, 2026, the Town cited the attorney-client privilege to redact the responsive record. The Town further stated:  We provided all responsive records that are not exempt from disclosure[.]  Redactions were applied only where required under the law[.]  Redacted information relates to: o Legal advice or opinions[;]

Wendy Brough SPR26/1145 Page 3 April 8, 2026 o Legal analysis or strategy[;] o Confidential attorney-client communications[.]  We limited redactions to only the specific portions of text that are exempt[.]  All non-exempt, reasonably segregable information has been released[.]  All unrelated communications not related to your request on other topics discussed with the Town’s attorneys were redacted. What I will do, is ask the administrative staff to do a second review of Town Counsel invoices to include key words such as Great Rock Road, Norton and . . . Edgartown road from January 1 to present, and see if there are any additional that were missed in the first review. On March 25, 2026, Mr. Palches stated, “I acknowledge your offer to do a second review of the invoices. In addition to the topics you suggest I would like to add: third-party-lease, agricultural land, excavation equipment, complaint from abutters, ZBA, ZBA decision, [and] [an identified individual].” On March 27, 2026, the Town responded: As discussed, I conducted a second review of all invoices submitted for town- wide counsel services related to the property, as per your public records request, including searches under other names associated with this case. I can confirm that the attached invoice is the only invoice that includes a consultation with counsel regarding Norton Farm. These services were on January 28, 2026, totaling 0.6 hours with [an identified individual]. Please note that the redacted portions of the invoice pertain to unrelated matters for which the Building Commissioner sought counsel during January 2026, and are not connected to Norton Farm. Additional Records Based on the Town’s responses, and in conjunction with Mr. Palches appeal, it is unclear if the Town possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Town possesses additional “bills from Town Counsel to the Town of Oak Bluffs for services provided from January [2]024 until the present[,]” 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). 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). Consequently, the Town must clarify whether additional records exist.

Wendy Brough SPR26/1145 Page 4 April 8, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Palches with a response to the 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. Mr. Palches may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Peter Palches