Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashbmion Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Tarrow: I have received the petition of Ronald Alexander appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Alexander requested the following: 1.
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 Thomas Mayo Page 2 August 20, 2020 SPR20/1338 The Towns August 10th response In its August 10th response, the Town states [p]lease be advised that the Town of Hingham has forwarded the matter referenced in your request to the Massachusetts Attorney GeneralsOffice for review.
1 document · ·Secretary of the Commonwealth ·
Appeal
·
Attorney General's Office
·
Mulvihill, Maggie
·
Closed
20230035 SPR23/0035 Appeal Initial Closed 20230035 Mulvihill, Maggie Attorney General's Office 2022-10-24 2023-01-09 2023-01-23 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 23, 2023 SPR23/0035 Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq.
Page 3 September 1, 2021 SPR21/2105 The Attorney GeneralsOffice (AGO) has concluded, a resume submitted as part of an employment application falls within a core category of personnel information useful in making employment decisions, and is therefore absolutely exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c). See AGO letter dated May 7, 2020 regarding SPR19/2399 (Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2019).
Additionally, it is the Departments understanding that the Attorney GeneralsOffice is currently reviewing enforcement action and will make a determination whether materials related to the death of Trp. Savela should be released pursuant to the Public Records Law. See SPR 20-0704. In his appeal petition, Mr.
Both the Town and Attorney Nislick acknowledge in their responses that the requested records at issue in this appeal, and specifically the issue of whether the Town held the executive sessions in compliance with the OML and whether the Town is permitted to withhold the minutes under the OML is the subject of an OML complaint that is pending with the Division of Open Government (Division) in the Office of the Attorney General (Office).
On March 5, 2013 and April 16, 2013, the Commission consisted of five appointed members, with two 1 We remind the Commission that a public body must review and respond to an Open Meeting Law complaint within 14 business days, and send a copy of its response to the complainant and to the Attorney General'sOffice. G.L. c. 30A, 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(5). O vacancies.
See OML 2012-3; OML 2011-13.2 However, the Attorney General'sOffice strongly encourages public bodies to postpone discussion and action on topics which are controversial or may be of particular interest to the public if those topics were not listed on the meeting notice. See OML 2012-19. At issue is whether the Committee violated the Open Meeting Law by discussing Mr. Zimini's motion that future meetings be recorded.
This determination addresses complaints 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57. 3 One member of the Committee is an employee of the Attorney GeneralsOffice.