Don Kempner Warner Saklad v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20171572)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 20, 2017 SPR17/1572 Brian A. Schwartz, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Cambridge Law Department 795 Massachusetts A venue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Attorney Schwartz: I have received the petition of Don Kempner Warner Saklad appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Saklad requested various records related to an individual on the City's Broadband Task Force. In a response dated November 2, 2017, the City provided responsive records, but withheld certain information under Exemptions ( c) and ( o) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (o). 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, § lOA(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, § 1O (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. The City's responses In its November 2nd response the City indicates it "does not possess documentation responsive to your request for an appointee profile sheet." The City provided other responsive records, including a resume, and explains "[t]he City is withholding Mr. Grochow's personal 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

Brian A. Schwartz, Esq. SPR17/1572 Page 2 November 20, 2017 email address based on Exemption ( o) and to protect personal privacy based on Exemption ( c ); and his application to the Task Force as personnel information based on Exemption (c) pursuant to G.L. c. 4 § 7(26)." Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a supplemental response dated November 17, 2017. In this response the City asserts "in accordance with G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o ), a municipality may withhold from disclosure the personal email address of an employee or member of a municipal task force." With respect to the resume provided to Mr. Saklad, you note that "the City disputes the claim that it edited, modified, or redacted the record in any manner, and maintains that it produced the document to the Requestor in the same format that it was submitted to the City, by the appointee." Please note the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian ofrecords at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii). The City also reiterates it withheld the responsive application under Exemption ( c ). In his appeal petition, Mr. Saklad references a determination regarding the Open Meeting Law. Please be advised that the interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that Mr. Saklad contact the Division of Open Government within the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on this issue. ih Whereas the City's November 1 response addresses the issues raised in Mr. Saklad's appeal, I will consider this appeal closed. Mr. Saklad may appeal this response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Don Kempner Warner Saklad