Russell Seelig v. Springfield, City of - Assessor's Office (SPR 20191727)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S, Murray Supervisor of Records September 10, 2019 SPR19/1727

Andrea L. Stone

Public Records Coordinator City of Springfield

36 Court Street, Room 123 Springfield, MA 01103

Dear Ms, Stone:

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, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32,08(1). Specifically, Mr. Seelig requested “[] the model, study or other document on which the valuation of 899 Main Street for FY2019 was made” (Request 1). Mr. Seelig also requested “[] a copy of the document(s) on which the 30% increase in Economic Adjustment for the Multi-use Sales category was based for FY2019 for 899 Main Street” (Request 2).

The City responded on August 2, 2019 by providing links to certain information but also citing G. L. c. 59, § 52B as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). | |

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. Attormey 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

Andrea L, Stone SPR19/1727 Page 2 September 10, 2019

Appeal

In its August 2" response the City indicates that with respect to Request 1 “[p]ersonnel in the Assessor[’]s Office have advised that the assessment for 899 Main Street is the result of considering both sales data and information obtained by the Assessors through M.G.L. c. 59, §38D, said data and information is exempt from disclosure as public records pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7 (26) (a), and M.G.L.c, 59, Section 52B as further explained below. . . .” The City also explains “[t]he sales information is publically available at the Hampden County Registry of Deeds [Registry]” and provides a link to the Registry’s website. In response to Request 2, the City provides links to the Registry’s website, as well as various pages of the City’s website. The City notes that “[t]he valuation method for requested parcel (899 Main) is available on the City’s publically available property record card. .

In his appeal petition Mr. Seelig indicates, in part, “[t]his is a request for assistance in obtaining more substantive information from the Springfield Board of Assessors” regarding his request. He notes that “[t]he City’s initial response to Request #1 ignores providing the ‘model, study, or other document [.]..’ and instead says that the background data that would lead to same is exempt from disclosure. However the request is not for the 38D information itself but the conclusions drawn from it which it is believed to be [pJublic [rJecord, typically a study or model.” With respect to Request 2, Mr. Seelig asserts, in part, “[i]t is agreed that the valuation method is on the Property Record card but there is no indication or study or model on which it is based. Studies and models are Public Record and that is what is being requested.”

Existence of 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 of records at the time of the request. See G, L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). In light of the issues raised in Mr. Seelig’s appeal regarding the existence of responsive records, and despite the City’s response, I find it is unclear why responsive records have not been provided; specifically, the City must explain whether additional responsive

records exist, such as the studies or models Mr. Seelig references in his request and appeal. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(11), (b)(ii).

Conclusion

Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Seelig a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Andrea L. Stone SPR19/1727 Page 3 September 10, 2019

Sincerely,

Qheca

Rebecca S. Mutray Supervisor of Records cc: Russell Seelig