Carroll, Michael v. Bridgewater, Town of - Office of the Town Manager (SPR 20261452)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 30, 2026 SPR26/1452 Tina Larson Town Clerk Town of Bridgewater 66 Central Square Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Larson: I have received the petition of Michael Carroll appealing the response of the Town of Bridgewater (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 14, 2026, Mr. Carroll requested “the current gallons per day and gallons per minute for municipal wells 2, 3, 4, 5R, 6, 7, 8, 9R, 10A, and 10B, including the date of last active operation for wells 10A and 10B.” The Town responded on April 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Carroll petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1452, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Town provided a further response on April 22, 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 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. 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

Tina Larson SPR26/1452 Page 2 April 30, 2026 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 April 16th and April 22nd Responses In its April 16, 2026 response, the Town cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. In its April 22, 2026 response, the Town expanded upon its Exemption (n) claims. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Carroll argued against the applicability of Exemption (n) to the responsive records and stated, “[t]he Town’s own consultant published the figures the Town now claims are too dangerous to release. The denial fails the specificity requirement, misapplies the exemption category, and is contradicted by the Town’s own public record.” In follow-up emails to this office on April 17, 2026 and April 21, 2026, Mr. Carroll stated, “I’ve learned that the Town intends to publish a digital public water dashboard providing averaged system-wide figures. This does not satisfy the request… The dashboard confirms, rather than resolves, the inadequacy of the Town’s response to my records request.” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” PETA, 477 Mass. 280, 289-90.

Tina Larson SPR26/1452 Page 3 April 30, 2026 The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. Under Exemption (n), the Town stated: The requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Providing information regarding the daily water flow and production of our wells could be utilized to significantly impact our critical infrastructure. If someone were to use the information in a negative manner, that could pose a significant threat to the overall water system and potentially endanger the health, safety, and welfare of the public, especially if the information provided is applied or utilized in a harmful manner. For example, a person who wishes to do the public harm would be able to discern when the Town is at most risk and unable to maintain firefighting water levels at a specific time period… To our knowledge, other communities provide averages over a span of time, not daily figures… Further, the Town has developed an informational water dashboard on its website, which provides averaged water data for public access. Based on the Town’s responses, it appears that the requested records may resemble “emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings,” listed as examples in the statute, which could be the types of records that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage.” However, the Town did not provide sufficient factual heft to conclude that a reasonable person would agree that disclosure of the records is “likely to jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity,” as required by Exemption (n). The Town must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Carroll 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. Carroll may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Tina Larson SPR26/1452 Page 4 April 30, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Carroll Justin Casanova-Davis