Meehan, Kelly v. Bridgewater, Town of - Office of the Town Manager (SPR 20261465)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1465 Tina Larson Town Clerk Town of Bridgewater 66 Central Square Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Larson: I have received the petition of Kelly Meehan 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 7, 2026, Ms. Meehan made the following request: Can you please send me the current gallons per day and gallons per minute on the following wells[?]:  2  3  4  5R  6  7  8  9R  10 A – When it was last active  10 B – When it was last active[.] The Town initially responded on April 14, 2026. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/1405 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 17, 2026). In my April 17th determination, I closed the appeal in light of the Town providing a further response on April 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s 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 SPR26/1465 Page 2 April 29, 2026 response, Ms. Meehan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1465, 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Town’s April 14th and April 16th Responses In its April 14, 2026 response, the Town cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. In its April 16, 2026 response, the Town expanded upon its Exemption (n) claims. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Meehan argued against the Town’s Exemption (n) claims and stated, “[t]he question was not answered. I want the current production of all wells… The residents deserve to know this information.” 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

Tina Larson SPR26/1465 Page 3 April 29, 2026 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. 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 information you are seeking relates to the security and vulnerability of public water system infrastructure and disclosure of this information could jeopardize public safety and the integrity of the municipal water supply. Accordingly, the Town is withholding these records under Exemption (n)… 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. As such, the Town maintains that providing the daily water flow of a Town is exempt under Exemption (n), as it poses a threat to critical infrastructure. Further, the Town has communicated that it is in the process of developing an

Tina Larson SPR26/1465 Page 4 April 29, 2026 informational water dashboard on its website, which will provide averaged water data for public access. The Town anticipates this dashboard will be online by the end of April or early May at the latest. 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 Ms. Meehan 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. Meehan 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: Kelly Meehan Julian Casanova-Davis