Danilchenko, Olena v. Concord, Town of (SPR 20261234)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 16, 2026 SPR26/1234 Nathanial Smith Municipal Archivist and Records Manager Town of Concord 22 Monument Square Concord, MA 01742 Dear Mr. Smith: I have received the petition of Olena Danilchenko appealing the response of the Town of Concord (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 20, 2026, Ms. Danilchenko requested the following: [1] Meeting Records: All zoom/video/audit meeting recordings, official and [un]official transcripts (finals and drafts), and contemporaneous handwritten or digital notes taken by the Assessor or any Board member during the April 11, 2024 and February 13, 2025 Board of Assessors meetings regarding [an identified address][;] [2] Specifically, I am seeking the portion of the meeting where [an identified address] was discussed. If the recording has been destroyed, please provide the Date of Destruction and the Certification of Destruction as required by the Supervisor of Public Records[;] [3] The Unredacted Meeting Minutes from the Board of Assessors Meetings on April 11, 2024 and February 13, 2025[;] [4] Condition Assessment: All “Field Cards,” “Internal Sales Field Notes,” from the February 2024 property inspection by the assessors[;] [5] Justification for Reclassification: We are looking for the Audit Log showing who changed the Valuation Code from 00 to 10 on [an identified property] and when. 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

Nathanial Smith SPR26/1234 Page 2 April 16, 2026 The Town responded on March 23, 2026, March 25, 2026, March 31, 2026, April 2, 2026, and April 3, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Ms. Danilchenko petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1234, 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. 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. The Town’s Responses In its March 23, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged receipt of the request assigning it reference number PRR2026-0218. In its March 25, 2026 response, the Town stated the following: For Items #1 and 2; no recordings of the meetings exist. The retention period for meeting recordings used in drafting minutes is “until final minutes are approved of administrative use ceases, whichever occurs later.” The Town uses Zoom to record these meetings, and the recordings are automatically deleted after 180 days. In the case of these specific meetings, the Minutes were approved well before the recordings were deleted and permission from the State is not required for destruction/deletion. For Item #3, the meeting minutes are available on our website: [website links provided].

Nathanial Smith SPR26/1234 Page 3 April 16, 2026 For Item #4, the field card is also available via our website: [website link provided]. For Item #5, we provided you with the notes from our system via request #PRR2026-0221; you can also access it here: [website link provided]. In a March 25, 2026 email to the Town, Ms. Danilchenko modified her request to seek the following: Since the zoom recordings of 2024 and 2025 meetings do not exist, I reframe my request to include executive session discussion minutes from two meetings pertaining to [an identified address]: April 18, 2024 and February 13, 2025. In order to access yesterday’s Board of Assessors meeting records (from March 24, 2026) including zoom recordings and executive session discussion minutes pertaining to [an identified address], I formally request that they are sent to us as soon as they are available before they are destroyed… In an additional March 25, 2026 response, the Town stated, “[w]e will evaluate this new request…” In a March 30, 2026 email to the Town, Ms. Danilchenko stated, “I would like to clarify that I was seeking Executive Sessions meeting notes fro[m] April 11, 2024 and Feb 13, 2025 pertaining to [an identified address]…For #4 – Assessors inspected [an identified address] in Feb 2024 and March 2025. They should have records that resulted from these visits. This was the scope of our request #4. I have access to the official Property Card on Vision system.” In its March 31, 2026 response, the Town stated, “[a]ll Executive Session minutes requested are exempt from disclosure in accordance with Exemption A (By Statute) to the Public Records Law. In addition, there are no responsive records for the recording of the 3/24/2026 meeting because it was not recorded.” In its April 2, 2026 response, the Town stated, “[a]s noted in our [March 31, 2026] response; the Executive Sessions meeting notes from April 11, 2024 and Feb 13, 2025 are exempt from disclosure in accordance with Exemption A (By Statute) to the Public Records Law. As for the ‘records that resulted from these visits”; there is the note we shared via request #PRR2026-0221. In addition, there are the notes in the Property Card…There are no other responsive records to this request.” In an April 3, 2026 email to the Town, Ms. Danilchenko stated, “I am writing to formally contest the Town’s blanket denial of the Executive Session minutes for April 11, 2024, and Feb

Nathanial Smith SPR26/1234 Page 4 April 16, 2026 13, 2025. The Town’s reliance on Exemption (a) to withhold these records in their entirety is legally insufficient…” In an additional April 3, 2026 email to the Town, Ms. Denilchenko stated, “I am writing to formally contest the denial of my request for the Zoom recording of the Board of Assessors meeting held on March 24, 2026. The Town’s claim that no recording exists is contradicted by the fact that the Chair . . ., explicitly announced at the start of the session that the meeting was being recorded…” Current Appeal In her April 2, 2026 petition to this office, Ms. Danilchenko stated: … The Town has failed to provide access to records essential to a taxpayer’s right to verify the integrity of the public records… I request that the Supervisor: [1] Order the Town to produce all surviving Zoom video, meeting metadata summaries, zoom host emails following meetings that include audio-to-text meeting transcripts, and chat logs for the requested dates. Obtain all records (including from offsite archives) pertaining to the discussion about [an identified address] from the Board of Assessors Abatement meetings listed above (FY24, 25, and 26)[;] [2] Investigate whether the Town followed proper state procedures (6-months retention / using Form RMU-2) before destroying records[;] [3] Order the Town to produce the requested Executive Session minutes (FY24 and FY25), pertaining to the discussion about [an identified address] data, sales validity, condition, state, and such[;] [4] Order the Town to provide a specific date by which they will produce the records, if they are requesting a delay… Open Meeting Law – Executive Session Minutes The nature of the Town’s responses and Ms. Danilchenko’s appeal raise issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address this issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes.

Nathanial Smith SPR26/1234 Page 5 April 16, 2026 Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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 responses and Ms. Danilchenko’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Town possesses records responsive to Ms. Danilchenko’s March 25th modified request. Specifically, the Town must clarify whether it possesses a recording of the March 24th meeting. If the Town does possess the responsive record, it must either provide the record, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the record. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Ms. Danilchenko 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. Ms. Danilchenko may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Olena Danilchenko