Russell Seelig v. Springfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20181232)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 27,2018 SPR1811232 Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. City Clerk City of Springfield 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 0 11 0 3 Dear Attorney Wilson: I have received the petition of Russell Seelig appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 5 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on June 16,2018, Mr. Seelig requested "a viewing of the most recent Tyler Technology English Language Description of the processes and procedures that describe the mass appraisal software that is used to value single family residential properties in Springfield." In a letter dated August 2,2018 , the City denied his request claiming the responsive records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (g) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(g). 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, 1O A(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. Flatlev, 419 Mass. 507, 51 1 (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. 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

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. Page 2 August 27,2018 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, 5 lO(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Exemption (g) In its response, the City indicates that it "must deny [Mr. Seelig's] request.. .because the City believes that the requested records are exempt from disclosure as public records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, 97 (26)(g)." Exemption (g) applies to: trade secrets or commercial or financial information voluntarily provided to an agency for use in developing governmental policy and upon a promise of confidentiality; but this sub-clause shall not apply to information submitted as required by law or as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or other benefit For this exemption to apply to withhold a record, a custodian must meet all of the following six (6) criteria contained in the exemption: (1) Trade secrets or commercial or financial information, (2) Voluntarily provided to a government entity, (3) For use in developing government policy, (4) Upon an assurance of confidentiality, (5) Information not provided by law, and (6) Information not submitted as a condition of receiving a governmental contract or benefit. Specificity The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with speciJicity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, 9 lO(b)(iv)(emphasis added); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 51 1. The City's response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the City's response merely cites Exemption (g) without any further explanation as to the exemption's applicability to the requested records. The City is not permitted to issue a blanket denial without providing any further information with respect to the requested records. As a result, I find that the City did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. The City is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations.

Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. Page 3 August 27,20 18 Conclusion Given that the City has not met its burden to explain how an exemption applies to the requested records, the requested records may not be withheld. Accordingly, the City is ordered to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Mr. Seelig with responsive records, provided 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. The City may file a request for reconsideration of this determination within ten business days of the date of this determination letter. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Russell Seelig