Don Kempner Warner Saklad v. Cambridge, City of - City Manager's Office (SPR 20171729)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords January 2, 2018 SPR17/1729 Jennifer Simpson City of Cambridge-City Manager's Office Cambridge City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Simpson: I have received the petition of Don Saklad appealing the response of the City of Cambridge City Manager (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on November 20, 2017, Mr. Saklad requested "a) all information/details about [an identified Appointee] of our Cambridge Broadband Task Force." Mr. Saklad noted that this information should include: "b) the Appointee Application to the Task Force. c) the Appointee profile/background/qualifications sheets. d) the Appointee confirmation sheets/documents/letter." The City provided a response on December 4, 2017, which included some responsive records. The City also denied access to others pursuant to Exemptions ( c) and ( o) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (o). Unsatisfied with the City's response, Mr. Saklad petitioned this office and this appeal, SPRl 7/1729, was opened as a result. In this appeal, Mr. Saklad is appealing the substantive nature of the City's response, contending that "background information prepared for all Task Force members," which has not been provided, is a public record. 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, § IOA(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). 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

Jennifer Simpson SPRl 7/1729 Page2 January 2, 2018 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City's December 4'h response In its December 4th response, the City indicated that it did not possess documentation responsive to Mr. Saklad's request for "appointee profile sheet." The City indicated that it withheld the identified Appointee's personal email address and application to the Task Force pursuant to Exemptions (o) and (c) of the Public Records Law, to protect his or her personal privacy and as personnel information respectively. · Additional responsive records 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, § IO(a)(ii). Mr. Saklad claims that "[p]revious responses for information about Cambridge Broadband Task Force included resumes/background information about the Task Force members." Based on·the City's response, together with Mr. Saklad's petition, it is unclear if the City possesses additional responsive records. I understand a Public Records Division staff attorney contacted your office about this appeal and you indicated the City would provide a supplemental response to Mr. Saklad. Conclusion Accordingly, whereas the City has indicated that it will provide a supplemental response, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed with the proviso that the City provides said response 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.

Jennifer Simpson SPR17/1729 Page 3 January 2, 2018 Sincerely, ~ u r r ~ Supervisor of Records cc: Don Saklad