Archambault, Rob v. Seekonk, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20261164)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 13, 2026 SPR26/1164 Christina Testa Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Seekonk Seekonk Town Hall 100 Peck Street Seekonk, MA 02771 Dear Ms. Testa: I have received the petition of Robert Archambault appealing the response of the Town of Seekonk (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 13, 2026, Mr. Archambault requested the following: All email correspondence between members of the Medeiros Farm Committee. 7/1/2025 to the exact date of release of such information[.] Seeking to capture all email dialog up to and including committee members requests of such information. Please include any correspondence regarding the TA as well subject to the MFC[.] The Town responded on March 25, 2026 and March 30, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Archambault petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1164, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a supplemental response in an email to Mr. Archambault and this office on April 1, 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). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in 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

Christina Testa SPR26/1164 Page 2 April 13, 2026 order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Att’y 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, Mr. Archambault contends that he “still [does] not have an adequate response on the 3/13/26 request.” He states that he is “not appealing the [Town’s] fee [estimate] but the deadline has passed” and additionally indicates that he is “seekong [sic] a clarification to what they have and do not have.” The Town’s Responses In its March 25, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged, “[the] public records requests dated March 13, 2026” and noted the request was received by the Town on Monday, March 16, 2026.” The Town additionally stated that it “already started the research for [the] requests [sic], and, currently, there are over 400 pages of documents that need to be reviewed and possibly redacted.” The Town further noted that it would provide Mr. Archambault with a response to his above request “within ten business days of [the] initial request.” In its March 30, 2026 response, the Town provided a fee estimate of $50.00 “to locate records responsive to [the] request” and further provided the following: Category Hours Per Hour Cost Review for possible 2 hours Rate in excess of redaction emails [sic] and $25.00/hour, so reduced to other documentation $25.00/hour, as required responsive to the request TOTAL 2 hours $50.00 The employee search time quoted above is charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling the responsive records, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i). . . . [B]ecause the combined population of the Town is less than 20,000 residents, pursuant to the last Decennial U.S. Census, [the Town] will . . . [charge] for the first two hours of work associated with this request. . . . In its April 1, 2026 supplemental response, a representative for the Town again noted that Mr. Archambault’s March 13, 2026 request that “was submitted to the Town on Friday, March 13, 2026” and further stated that, “[t]he Seekonk Town Hall is closed on Fridays, and we

Christina Testa SPR26/1164 Page 3 April 13, 2026 subsequently received this request on Monday, March 16, 2026.” The Town representative additionally stated that “[a]fter a cursory review of these emails and documents, it was determined the Town would be required to conduct an additional, in-depth review for possible redactions.” The Town representative further underscored that “[t]he Town’s [fee estimate] letter for this public records request was emailed to Mr. Archambault on Monday, March 30, 2026. . . In that letter, it was explained that due to the number of pages of documents that needed to be reviewed and/or redacted, the Town would charge the fee of $50.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) In light of the claims in Mr. Archambault’s appeal petition, it is necessary to review the timeliness of the Town’s fee estimate. G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under subsection (b).” Upon review, Mr. Archambault submitted his request at 9:31 a.m. on Friday, March 13, 2026, and the Town provided its fee estimate on March 30, 2026. The request was sent on March 13th and the 10 business days began accruing March 16th as day one, requiring the response for a fee estimate to be issued on March 27, 2026. Consequently, it is my determination that the Town has not met its burden to show that it complied with the provisions of G. L. c. 66, § 10(e). Therefore, the Town may not assess a fee for this public records request. Please note, pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.02, a “Business Day” is “Monday through Friday. Business day does not include Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, or other weekdays where a custodian’s office is closed unexpectedly.” Possession, Custody or Control; Records in Existence 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). Upon review, where the Town identified “over 400 pages of documents” responsive to Mr. Archambault’s request in its March 25, 2026 response, I find that the Town must either provide the responsive documents, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the responsive documents. 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”).

Christina Testa SPR26/1164 Page 4 April 13, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Archambault with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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: Robert Archambault