Bombredi, Cory v. Barre, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20261193)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 15, 2026 SPR26/1193 Melanie Jackson Town Administrator Town of Barre 40 West Street, Suite 697 Barre, MA 01005 Dear Ms. Jackson: I have received the petition of Cory Bombredi appealing the response of the Town of Barre (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 25, 2026, Mr. Bombredi requested “[e]xecutive session meeting minutes for the Select Board meetings held on: September 18, 2025[,] September 24, 2025[,] [and] January 9, 2026” and “[t]he Town of Barre FY2024 audit, including: Audited financial statements [and] [m]anagement letter[.]” The Town provided a response on April 1, 2026, which included responsive records. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Bombredi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1193, 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 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

Melanie Jackson SPR26/1193 Page 2 April 15, 2026 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s April 1st Response In its April 1, 2026 response, the Town provided eleven pages of responsive executive session minutes with redactions and stated, “[o]n March 30, 2026, the Select Board reviewed the minutes responsive to [the] request in executive session and voted to release the minutes of September 18, 2025, September 24, 2025 and January 9, 2026, subject to” redactions under the attorney-client privilege and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Town also explained that it did not possesses records responsive to the portion of Mr. Bombredi’s request seeking “[t]he Town of Barre FY2024 audit” where the Town had “not received [its] FY24 audit[.]” Current Appeal In his April 2, 2026 appeal, Mr. Bombredi objects to the Town’s claims under the attorney-client privilege and Exemption (c), and argues, “[t]he Town has asserted attorney-client privilege in a generalized and conclusory manner.” Under Exemption (c), Mr. Bombredi further claims, “[t]he Town has redacted the names of the [department heads] involved” and notes, “these individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy . . . where the records relate to matters that resulted in official action.” Additionally, it is my understanding that Mr. Bombredi does not object to the portion of the Town’s response regarding “[t]he Town of Barre FY2024 audit[.]” Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In its April 1, 2026 response, under the attorney-client privilege, the Town provided a privilege log with the following information:

Melanie Jackson SPR26/1193 Page 3 April 15, 2026 The redacted material specifically contains legal advice provided by Town Counsel in Town Counsel’s capacity as the Town’s attorney; the advice was given in confidence and the Town has not waived the privilege. . . . Privilege Log Date Subject September 18, 2025 Town Counsel advise as to agreement and potential litigation. September 24, 2025 Town Counsel advice as to contract and employment. Upon review, the Town has satisfied the requirement that the communications were made in confidence and the requirement that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived where the Town states in its response, “the advice [by Town Counsel] was given in confidence and the Town has not waived the privilege.” However, the Town must clarify whether each of the communications it has redacted from the responsive executive session minutes under the attorney-client privilege constitutes communication between the Town and its attorney in the attorney’s capacity as such. Further, although portions of the executive session minutes were redacted, the Town has left intact the information required under G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a), including information regarding the substance of each record. However, where the Town has redacted the names of individuals listed under “Others Present” in each of the responsive executive session minutes and based on the information provided in the Town’s response, I find that the names of the author(s) and recipients of the communications is not clear. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Personnel Information While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. School Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as

Melanie Jackson SPR26/1193 Page 4 April 15, 2026 opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In its April 1, 2026 response, under Exemption (c), the Town stated, “personnel information, including but not limited to disciplinary or termination information, has been redacted.” To the extent that the redacted information contains “disciplinary or termination information” pertaining to a particular employee, the Town may permissibly withhold those portions from disclosure. However, the Town has not demonstrated how “personnel information . . . not limited to disciplinary or termination information” that it redacted from the responsive executive session minutes falls within the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798. As a result, I find that the Town did not meet its burden of specificity in redacting the responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. The Town must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Bombredi 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: Cory Bombredi