Laura H. Ortiz v. Lowell, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20200086)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords January 29, 2020 SPR20/0086 John R. Hucksam, Jr., Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Lowell Law Department 375 Merrimack Street, 3rd Floor Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Attorney Hucksam: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the City of Lowell (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § IOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on September 13, 2019, Ms. 01iiz requested, "DPW School Dude repmi and · Microsoft Outlook report regarding requested repairs for all Lowell public schools from May 1, 2019 to September 13, 2019." Prior appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPRl 9/2015 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) (October 17, 2019). This prior appeal was based on the City's nonresponse to Ms. 01iiz's public records request. I closed SPR19/2015 given the City's indication it would provide Ms. Ortiz with the responsive records once all necessary redactions were completed. The City provided Ms. Ortiz with the responsive DPW School Dude report (dude report); however, it did not provide the Microsoft Outlook report. Current appeal As a result of the redacted dude report she received, and the City not providing the Microsoft Outlook report, Ms. Ortiz petitioned the Supervisor, and the current appeal was opened. In her petition, Ms. Ortiz indicates that in the past the City provided her with the dude repo1i with certain columns removed that contain the exempt material pertaining to the specific locations within the schools that have not been repaired. It is her contention that removing the columns from the report before printing would save the City staff time, reducing the need for redactions. 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

John R. Hucksam, Jr., Esq. SPR20/0086 Page2 January 29, 2020 It is my understanding that Ms. Ortiz asked the City to take a second look at all the columns on the report that the City redacted, as she believes the redactions to the report in certain of these columns were done in.error, given that the repair(s) were completed and no further safety issue exists for those rooms, areas or other locations in the school buildings. I note that Ms. Ortiz and the City resolved this same issue in previous requests for dude reports in 2019. The City indicated for the dude report that certain information pertaining to the location descriptors of the repairs needed to be completed in the City's school buildings, such as school door numbers or door locations; room number(s), room names or door names; broken windows or window locks in certain rooms or locations within a school building(s), were redacted from the report under Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. I note that Ms. Ortiz does not object to the City's withholding of the location descriptors for uncompleted repairs under Exemption (n). I also note that this office ruled in a 2019 appeal regarding disclosure of the dude report requested by Ms. Ortiz in 2019 that the City met its burden of specificity under Exemption (n) to withhold the location descriptors for repairs that have not been completed as disclosure of this information is likely to jeopardize the public's safety. See SPR19/747 Determination of the Supervisor (April 25, 2019). The City provided Ms. Ortiz with a copy of the dude report; however, it is unclear whether the. City has only withheld or redacted the door numbers or door descriptions; room windows or window descriptions or other descriptive locations of repairs that have not been completed by September 13th, the date of Ms. Ortiz's request. Microsoft Outlook report/records Also in her current petition, Ms. Ortiz appealed the City's nonresponse to her request for the Microsoft Outlook report regarding the requested school building repairs. To date, the City has not provided her with that record. Therefore, I find that the City has not met its burden in responding to Ms. Ortiz's September 13, 2019 request for the Microsoft Outlook report. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the City is ordered to provide Ms. Ortiz with the dude report, and a copy of the Microsoft Outlook report she requested, 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.

John R. Hucksam, Jr., Esq. SPR20/0086 Page 3 January 29, 2020 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz Adam R. LaGrassa, Esq.