← Back to Search
Quemere, Andrew v. Boston, City of - Mayor's Office (SPR 20150272)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 04-24-2015
ClosedAppealDecision
SPR 20150272 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Quemere, Andrew concerning records held by Boston, City of - Mayor's Office, opened 04-24-2015. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20150272
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Quemere, Andrew
- Custodian
- Boston, City of - Mayor's Office
- Date Opened
- 04-24-2015
- Date Closed
- 08-28-2015
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords August 28, 2015 SPR15/268, 15/270 and 15/272 Ms. Laura Oggeri Chief Communications Officer Office of the Mayor City of Boston One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Dear Ms. Oggeri: I have received the petition of Andrew Quemere of The Bay State Examiner appealing the response of the City of Boston Mayor's Office (City) to his February and March 2015 requests for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Quemere requested a copy of the bid documents submitted by Boston 2024 to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) in December 2014, the documents Mayor Martin J. Walsh signed on behalf of the City of Boston regarding the Olympic bid, all emails between the Mayor's Office and Boston 2024, and the final draft of a speech that Mayor Walsh gave to the USOC in December 2014 in California. Mr. Queme re asked that the City provide him with a list of all records responsive to his requests, that the records be sent electronically and that all fees be waived. Request for emails A review of the communications between the City and Mr. Queme re shows that attached to a March 5, 2015 email, the City provided Mr. Quemere with the documents signed by the Mayor and forty-five pages of emails between the Mayor's Office and Boston 2024 up until the time of Mr. Quemere's request date of February 9, 2015. In an email to this office, Attorney Caroline Driscoll confirmed that an extensive search was conducted for the requested emails and that Mr. Quemere was provided all the responsive records the City had at that time. Further, Attorney Driscoll stated that any overlap in the City's responses to other requesters was because related requests were made involving the same or similar keywords and subject matter. Requestfor bid documents You informed Mr. Quemere that the City was not in custody ofthe bid documents OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre Ms. Laura Oggeri SPR15/268, 15/270 and 15/272 Page Two August 28,2015 submitted by Boston 2024 to the USOC, those records are retained by Boston 2024 and would be available from that entity. In a discussion with a member of my staff, you explained that the City's Law Department provided Mr. Quemere with the records that the City had regarding documents signed by the Mayor regarding the bid for the summer Olympics. In another conversation with a member of my staff, Attorney Driscoll stated the City did not possess a full copy of the bid at the time of the request. Attorney Driscoll informed this office that bid documents are now available online for public viewing. Request for final draft of speech Further, according to your emails exchanged with Mr. Quemere the City has no record regarding a speech or oral remarks made by Mayor Walsh to the USOC in December 2014. You also stated that the Mayor did not use a prepared documented speech during the presentation that Boston 2024 made to the USOC. In an email to this office Attorney Driscoll stated the Mayor often speaks without prepared notes. Attorney Driscoll confirmed that although the Mayor practiced his speech, a draft of the speech never existed. In light of these discussions and correspondences, it is my understanding that the City provided Mr. Quemere with all records in the City's custody and that are responsive to his February and March records requests. Waiver off ees In his requests, Mr. Quemere requests that the City waive any fees associated with the provision of the records. While this office encourages custodians to waive fees, it cannot mandate that a custodian do so. However, as a courtesy to Mr. Quemere and for these particular requests only, the City waived all applicable fees that could have been assessed under the Public Records Law Access Regulations. No duty to create record; no duty to answer questions In his April petitions, Mr. Quemere asks this office to order the City to answer the questions he posed in his emails to you. For example, Mr. Quemere queried in an April9, 2015 email, "Did the Mayor or anyone in his office ever read the bid documents?" Mr. Quemere also requested that the City provide him with an itemized list of all documents that his requests apply to. Under the Public Records Law, the City is not required to create a list of records or any record in response to a public records request. In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Atty Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for Ms. Laura Oggeri SPR15/268, 15/270 and 15/272 Page Three [DATE], 2015 information extends only to those records that exist and are in the custody of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). Right of appeal The requester also informed this office that the City did not advise him of his rights of administrative appeal and that the City should seek training to assist the City in meeting its obligations under the Public Records Law and its Regulations. It should be noted that the City was provided with training on the Public Records Law. Whereas the City provided records and claimed there were no other responsive documents, I find this was not a denial of access. Therefore, there is no violation ofthe Regulations. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Conclusion Whereas you have explained to both Mr. Quemere and this office that there are no additional records responsive to his inquiries, and there is no dutY. under the Public Records Law to create them, I find that the City has properly responded t the equests. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Andrew Quemere