The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
Rebecca S. Murray
Supervisor of Records

September 16, 2020
SPR20/1541
Michelle Monsegur
Assistant Town Administrator
Town of Hingham
210 Central Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Dear Ms. Monsegur:
I have received the petition of Daniel J. Nardo appealing the response of the Town of
Hingham (the Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R.
32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Nardo requested several categories of records pertaining to Hingham
Firefighters Local 23988, including “any and all contracts, agreements, reports, documents, and
financial records concerning the Town of Hingham’s work with Ms. Regina Ryan and/or
Discrimination and Harassment Solutions in relation to the Hingham Fire Department or
Hingham Firefighters Local 2398 since January 1, 2020.”
The Town responded to Mr. Nardo on August 31, 2020, providing records responsive to
portions of the request, and withholding others pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records
Law. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Nardo petitioned this office and this appeal,
SPR20/1541, 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 town 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

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

 Michelle Monsegur
Page 2
September 16, 2020

SPR20/1541

must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld
or redacted portion of the responsive record.
Current Appeal
In its August 31st response, the Town claims Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to
withhold responsive records from disclosure.
Exemption (f)
Exemption (f) permits the withholding of:
investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law
enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials
would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such
disclosure would not be in the public interest
G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f).
A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in
order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be
withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential
investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be
prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371
Mass 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity
of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Attorney Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v.
Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-bycase consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of
effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See
Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90.
In its response, the Town states that it “considers this matter under investigation by Ms.
Ryan until further notice and all documents relating to this matter are being withheld under M.G.
L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f).”
Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions; identifying records
Based on the Town’s response, it is unclear what records are within its possession. To
deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the
record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. 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 . . .”).

 Michelle Monsegur
Page 3
September 16, 2020

SPR20/1541

Further, although the Town states that it “considers this matter under investigation” it is
unclear how producing these records, or segregable portions thereof, “would probably so
prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the
public interest” as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). See Reinstein v. Police
Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly
construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record
is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). As a result, I find the Town has not met
its burden of explaining with specificity how the records, in their entirety, are exempt from
disclosure. The Town must provide further information regarding this matter.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide a response to Mr. Nardo, 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Sincerely,

Rebecca S. Murray
Supervisor of Records
cc: Daniel J. Nardo