Corey Spaulding v. Framingham, City of - Public Schools Department (SPR 20181151)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

August 13, 2018 SPR18/1147; SPR18/1151 Christopher L. Brown, Esq. Petrini & Associates, P.C. Counselors at Public Law 372 Union Avenue Framingham, MA 01702

Dear Attorney Brown:

I have received the petition of Corey Spaulding appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City or School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms. Spaulding requested “any cancelled checks or factual evidence of any and all grants that where accepted and deposited into bank accounts to the Framingham School Department from 2015-present” in addition to “factual evidence of any and all grants.” Please note SPR18/1147 and SPR18/1151 pertain to the same request and response; as a result, both appeals will be addressed in this determination.

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, § 10A(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, § 10(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.

Current appeal

In a letter dated July 19, 2018 sent on behalf of the City you expressed to Ms. Spaulding that “neither Framingham Public Schools nor the City of Framingham have any cancelled checks

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

Christopher L. Brown, Esq. SPR18/1147; SPR18/1151 Page 2 August 13, 2018

in their possession, custody or control.” 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 of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii).

You further note that although there are no cancelled checks in the possession of the City, “(t]he School Department does have email records for electronic transfers for state grant funds it receives.” The School states it would require up to 15 business days to complete the request. The School also expressed that it may be able to run a report from Munis, the City’s accounting software, and you provided a sample of the MUNIS report so that Ms. Spaulding may see the level of detail on the report. You indicate “[i]f a simple electronic record retrieval of these emails and MUNIS reports will suffice, the employee time to respond to your request will not exceed two hours for the search.”

With regard to Ms. Spaulding’s request for “factual evidence of any and all grants” Attorney Brown writes it “would require significant time to search and review physical paper files, extract documents, photo copy or otherwise make available, those documents. . . .” The City initially estimated a search could take at least 40 hours. However, you also note “[t]o the extent you can narrow your request at all, such as by excluding the paper records from your request, that would allow us to produce the records more efficiently and affordably and lower the fee to you.” You also directed Ms. Spaulding to the City’s website and the School Committee’s website for minutes of applicable meetings.

In an email to this office dated July 30, 2018, Ms. Spaulding posits “their policy does not require a public records request. . . .” and notes “I also requested school department financials of the city treasurer and was told this also was a public records request.” It also appears Ms. Spaulding objects to the fee amount, however, it is unclear which specific records Ms. Spaulding is currently seeking. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f) (all petitions for appeal shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to provide a timely response).

Conclusion

In light of the City’s July 19" letter and proposed methods to produce responsive records, including its offer to provide the MUNIS report, suggestion of a way to narrow the request, and production of applicable minutes, this office encourages the City and Ms. Spaulding to continue to communicate to enable the City to provide the requested public records. See G. L. c. 66, §10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably); G. L. c 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought).

If unresolved issues remain, Ms. Spaulding may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Christopher L. Brown, Esq. SPR18/1147; SPR18/1151 Page 3 August 13, 2018

Sincerely,

Rebecca S. M .

urray Supervisor of Records

cc: Corey Spaulding