Collin Dias v. Fall River, City of - Office of the Corporation Counsel (SPR 20181479)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 19, 2018 SPRlS/1477; SPRlS/1478; SPRlS/1479 Joseph I. Macy, Esq. Corporation Counsel City of Fall River One Government Center Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Judge Macy: I have received the petition of Collin Dias appealing the response of the City of Fall River (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on September 24, 2018 Mr. Dias requested records related to Mayor Correia, including "[a]ll record expenditures and receipts from Mayors trip to France" as well as various text and facebook messages related to the Mayor (SPR18/1477). On September 21, 2018 Mr. Dias requested various records including emails and text messages involving the Mayor, as well as expense records related to a City vehicle (SPR18/1478). Mr. Dias submitted another request on September 21, 2018 seeking text messages related to identified individuals (SPRl 8/14 79). The City responded to each request on October 1, 2018. In light of the similarities between the requests and responses, I will address the issues raised in SPR18/1477, SPR18/1478, and SPRl 8/14 79 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, § 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, § lO(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. 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

Joseph I. Macy, Esq. SPR18/1477; SPR18/1478; Page2 SPR18/1479 October 19, 2018 Appeal The City's October 181 responses The City responded to each request by indicating the following: "[t]his office has received and reviewed your most recent requests. As you know they are repetitious of previous requests which have either been answered or withdrawn. To the extent the materials requested from your most recent request have already been provided, this office declines to provide anything further. To the extent, your most recent requests are repetitious and frivolous our position is you have waived any right to these materials, which we specifically decline to produce, if they exist." In a previous determination involving appeals filed by Mr. Dias, I found that he must re submit his requests if he wishes to continue to pursue obtaining certain records. See SPR18/1217; SPR18/1221-SPR18/1226 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 15, 2018). As described above, Mr. Dias submitted these requests subsequent to the August 15th determination. Burden ofs pecificity Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b )(iv) (written response must "identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based ... "); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. Here, the City appears to be withholding responsive records without identifying the records. Therefore, the City must identify the type ofrecord(s) it has in its possession that it withheld. Additionally, the City has not met its burden to show how all responsive records, in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a). The City also did not provide a fee estimate in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d ). I find the City must provide responses to these requests under G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)-(b). Mr. Dias and the City are encouraged to maintain a professional working relationship to ensure that public records requests are clear and concise, and that records are produced efficiently and affordably. It should be noted that the request must reasonably describe the record being sought by including, for example, applicable time periods or topics. G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(i). Further, 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. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii).

Joseph I. Macy, Esq. SPR18/1477; SPR18/1478; Page 3 SPR18/1479 October 19, 2018 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Dias responses to these requests in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 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. Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Collin Dias