Ongoing And Systemic Violations Of The Massachusetts Public Records Law And Open Meeting Law

Understanding what constitutes a public record—and why it must be readily accessible—is fundamental to any functioning democracy.

Massachusetts law, under M.G.L. Chapter 4, Section 7, clause 26, defines public records broadly. It includes “all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics,” so long as they are made or received by any state or local government entity or official in the course of their duties. Unless a specific exemption applies, these records belong to the public.

This definition is not just legal jargon—it reflects a foundational principle: government transparency. Public records are the means by which residents understand, evaluate, and hold accountable the decisions made in their name. They are not optional or secondary. They are the primary tools of civic engagement.

It is therefore unacceptable for a municipality to withhold, delay, or remove access to these records. Doing so violates not only the letter of the law, but its spirit. It erodes public trust and directly impairs residents’ ability to participate meaningfully in local government.

It is no small irony that town officials often complain about low public participation, even as they systematically restrict access to the very information people need to be informed and engaged. When information disappears or is made difficult to access, participation does not become easier—it becomes impossible.

Transparency is not a favor the government extends to the public. It is a legal obligation and a democratic necessity. Public records must be made available without delay, without obstruction, and without exception—because an informed public is the cornerstone of a healthy, responsive, and accountable government.

On Tuesday, August 12, 2025, the Town of Millbury was formally served with an Open Meeting Law complaint following nearly eight months of silence and inaction. When the Town finally responded, it did so with a dismissive, take-it-or-leave-it attitude—suggesting it alone would decide what to provide. This stance ignores the fact that multiple Massachusetts laws and statutes—not the Town’s discretion—clearly define what must be disclosed and what compliance looks like under the law.

Public records are not the property of government—they belong to us, the people. These records are created using public funds, by public officials, to conduct public business. They exist solely because of the public’s right to know what its government is doing. The role of government officials and staff is not to control or restrict access to these records, but to serve as their custodians—charged with maintaining them and ensuring they are accessible to the public.

This distinction matters. When government treats public records as its own property, it subverts the core democratic principle of transparency. The public’s right to access information is not a privilege granted at the discretion of officials—it is a legal and constitutional right. Government bodies act on behalf of the people and are accountable to them. The records they generate in the course of that work must be made available promptly and in full, without obstruction, delay, or selective disclosure.

In short, public records are ours. The government merely holds them in trust—and with that trust comes a legal and moral obligation to ensure open access.

Supporting documentation to complaint

I. Introduction

This complaint is submitted pursuant to the Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, and the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18–25, against the Town of Millbury, including but not limited to its Planning Board, Planning Department, and their respective officers, agents, or employees. The violations described herein are not isolated administrative lapses; they constitute a pervasive, ongoing, and deliberate failure to comply with the Commonwealth’s statutory transparency obligations. These actions—and failures to act—have materially obstructed the public’s right to timely access to public records, diminished meaningful participation in government proceedings, and undermined the democratic process.

II. Summary of Alleged Violations

The Town of Millbury has engaged in repeated and willful violations of Massachusetts transparency laws, including but not limited to:

• The removal of previously accessible public records from the Town’s official website without justification or legal authority;

• The routine failure to post meeting materials contemporaneously with meeting notices;

• The selective distribution of documents to public officials, while unlawfully withholding the same materials from the general public;

• The invocation of vague or insufficient justifications—such as staffing limitations or alleged technical constraints—as pretexts to avoid compliance with legal mandates.

These practices not only contravene statutory and regulatory requirements but reflect a broader institutional disregard for transparency obligations and legal accountability. The result is a chilling effect on public engagement, erosion of public trust, and unlawful concealment of government activity from those whom it serves.

III. Factual Background and Procedural History

Beginning in late 2024 or early 2025, the Town removed from its public website a substantial volume of Planning Board records dated prior to January 19, 2025. These materials—previously available online—comprised complete public records associated with active and historical land use matters, including but not limited to: site plans, permit applications, staff reports, environmental reviews, and final decisions. These records are not exempt from disclosure and are of continuing legal and civic importance.

In response, the undersigned offered technical assistance to Town officials, proposing the use of existing Microsoft SharePoint infrastructure to restore public access to the affected documents. Despite SharePoint’s well-documented capabilities for secure, scalable, and publicly accessible document hosting, the Town took no steps to remedy the situation. No response to the offer of assistance was received for over eight months.

On July 14, 2025, during a public Planning Board meeting, the Town Planner, Conor McCormack, attributed the removal of records to inefficiencies and alleged storage limitations, stating that maintaining the system was “a lot of work” and “not a very efficient system,” and further implying a technical limitation on website hosting capacity. These justifications, whether sincere or not, are legally irrelevant. Compliance with the Public Records Law is not discretionary and cannot be excused on grounds of administrative convenience or speculative technological barriers.

Notably, the Town has previously publicized a contract for the digitization and storage of historical records—further undermining any claims that digital storage space is unavailable or infeasible.

On August 11, 2025, the undersigned requested access to the Planning Board’s meeting materials for that evening. Conor McCormack responded via email, noting that he had been out of the office, and pointed to a new web page containing only final site plans and decisions for 2024 and 2025. He further claimed that linking SharePoint content to the Town website was “not possible” due to unspecified “logistical, security, and privacy concerns.” These claims are technically inaccurate, unsupported by evidence, and, more importantly, fail to absolve the Town of its legal duties under Massachusetts law. To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, Conor McCormack is not qualified to issue authoritative conclusions regarding IT infrastructure.

At the same meeting, Planning Board Chair Bruce DeVault stated on the public record that Town Manager Karyn E. Clark had directed that only final plans and decision letters from the past two years be posted publicly, citing unspecified “storage concerns.” This policy—if indeed in effect—conflicts with both applicable law and prior Town practice, and constitutes an unreasonable delay and denial of access under G.L. c. 66, § 10.

IV. Verified Violations of Massachusetts Law

1. Failure to Timely Provide Public Records

• Legal Authority: G.L. c. 66, § 10; 950 CMR 32.01 through 32.04

• Violation: The removal of hundreds of public records from the Town’s website, and the failure to fulfill subsequent records requests, constitute unlawful delay and obstruction of access. These delays are neither “reasonable” under the statute nor justifiable under governing regulations or precedent.

1. Failure to Disclose Meeting Materials to the Public

• Legal Authority: G.L. c. 30A, § 20(g); Boelter v. Board of Selectmen of Wayland, 479 Mass. 233 (2018)

• Violation: Meeting materials provided to Planning Board members were not made available to the public concurrently, as required by the Open Meeting Law and the Supreme Judicial Court’s holding in Boelter. This practice constitutes unlawful deliberation and renders meetings noncompliant with G.L. c. 30A.

2. Failure to Maintain Online Access to Commonly Requested Records

• Legal Authority: G.L. c. 66, § 10(d); Acts of 2016, c. 121, § 16; 950 CMR 32.04(5)

• Violation: The Town previously demonstrated both the feasibility and routine practice of posting records online. Their subsequent removal is not only unjustified but contrary to both the letter and spirit of the law. The persistent refusal to restore access further exacerbates the violation.

3. Violation of Records Retention Requirements

• Legal Authority: G.L. c. 66, § 8; G.L. c. 30, § 42

• Violation: Removal of public records from public access—without expiration of applicable retention periods and without authorization from the Supervisor of Records—is unlawful. These documents remain subject to disclosure obligations for the full duration of their retention schedules.

V. Constitutional and Structural Concerns

The Town’s pattern of withholding public records and meeting materials has the effect—and perhaps the intent—of suppressing public participation in controversial governmental matters. These actions implicate broader constitutional rights, including those guaranteed by Articles 16 and 19 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Supreme Judicial Court’s recent holding in Barron v. Kolenda, 491 Mass. 408 (2023), reinforces that government actions restricting speech or public engagement must withstand strict scrutiny. By withholding critical information, the Town has effectively curtailed public speech and assembly on matters of public concern.

VI. Illustrative Harm: August 11, 2025 Planning Board Meeting

Despite multiple substantive matters appearing on the agenda—including zoning bylaw amendments, overlay district proposals, and definitional changes—no supporting documents were made publicly available prior to the meeting. Members of the public were thereby denied the opportunity to prepare or offer meaningful input, in direct violation of G.L. c. 30A and Boelter. This failure of disclosure materially inhibited democratic participation and rendered the meeting procedurally defective.

VII. Technical Misrepresentations Regarding Microsoft SharePoint

Assertions by Town officials that SharePoint cannot securely host or publish public documents are categorically false. Microsoft SharePoint, particularly SharePoint Online, is a widely accepted, secure, and legally compliant platform used across public and private sectors. It offers:

• Granular access controls, including public and restricted viewing;

• HTTPS encryption, password protection, and link expiration;

• Compliance with standards such as FedRAMP and ISO 27001;

• Seamless integration with public websites for document embedding and dynamic linking.

The Town’s refusal to utilize these features—while simultaneously claiming technological infeasibility—is a misrepresentation and does not excuse noncompliance.

VIII. Requested Remedies

The undersigned respectfully requests that your office:

1. Initiate an investigation into the Town’s ongoing violations of the Public Records Law and Open Meeting Law;

2. Order the immediate restoration of all public records previously available online, covering at least a 7–10 year period;

3. Mandate that all documents distributed to public bodies—whether in draft or final form—be simultaneously provided to the public;

4. Require all relevant Town personnel to complete mandatory state training on public records and open meeting requirements;

5. Direct the Town to publish a corrective action plan with definitive timelines for achieving full legal compliance.

IX. Conclusion

The Town of Millbury’s conduct, as described above, reflects an entrenched and unlawful resistance to transparency. This complaint is not rooted in technical inconvenience or misunderstanding—it is grounded in law, supported by facts, and necessitated by ongoing harm to the public interest. The undersigned respectfully requests acknowledgment of this complaint and notification of any further action to be taken pursuant to G.L. c. 30A and G.L. c. 66.

The consequences of inaction

It’s deeply disappointing that Town officials and staff failed to meaningfully respond to residents’ concerns for nearly eight months—leaving no choice but to file a formal complaint for violations of the Public Records Law and Open Meeting Law. Local government has a legal and moral responsibility to follow transparency laws and to encourage public involvement. Dismissing concerns because they are inconvenient, time-consuming, or come from voices they don’t value is not acceptable.

Our town government has become increasingly closed off, which is especially troubling when officials claim to want more public participation—yet continue to make it harder for people to get involved. Inclusion isn’t just a talking point. It means making sure every resident has fair access to information and a real opportunity to be heard—not just those with connections or experience navigating a confusing system. Everyone deserves a seat at the table.

Access is the cornerstone of meaningful public participation. In today’s world, most people have a smartphone, tablet, or computer with internet access, allowing them to view public records, meeting materials, presentations, and more—on their own time and in a way that works for them. Yet despite the technology and infrastructure in place, essential information is still being withheld, delayed, or made unnecessarily difficult to find.

There is simply no excuse. The Town already entered into an agreement to scan and store public records presumably in the cloud, making them readily accessible online. When that information isn’t made available, it’s not a matter of capability—it’s a matter of will. Denying access undermines transparency and shuts the public out of decisions that affect them.