Jasmine E. Parthasarathy v. Woburn, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20201590)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 18, 2020 SPR20/1590 William Campbell City Clerk City of Woburn 10 Common Street Woburn, MA 01801 Dear Mr. Campbell: I have received the petition of Jasmine Parthasarathy appealing the response of the City of Woburn (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 31, 2020, Ms. Parthasarathy requested 8 categories of records including “[a]ll emails, including attachments, from any member of the WPL Board of Trustees . . . to any member of the Minuteman Library Network Board of Directors . . . July 2019- present.” The City provided a response on August 10, 2020, indicating it did not possess responsive records. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Parthasarathy, petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1590, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on September 10, 2020. 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be 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

William Campbell SPR20/1590 Page 2 September 18, 2020 provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); -se-e -a-ls-o 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s August 10th response In its August 10, 2020 response, the City indicates “[t]here are no responsive documents. When inquired, the Trustees responded that they have not sent any communications to the MLN.” In her appeal petition, Ms. Parthasarathy states the following: . . . Believing [the August 10th] response to be false, I next submitted individual requests for the above-named MLN Board Members, asking the city clerks in their respective cities to provide any communications they may have received from the above-named WPL Trustees. Thus far I have received the responsive document from three separate MLN Board Members. . . . As this attachment shows, Carol Seitz emailed the MLN Board members on July 12, 2020. This confirms my suspicion that her response to Ms. Doucette had been intentionally false. In fact, as illustrated in the attachment, she emailed each Board Member separately. These messages contain identical text but carry unique timestamps. This means she hid not one email, but several. . . .” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, this office learned that on September 10, 2020, the City provided Ms. Parthasarathy with a supplemental response, including certain records. In the City’s September 10th response, it explains that its omission in producing the responsive records was inadvertent. The City states “[f]urther, to the issue of production of emails, the members of the Board of Trustees use private or business email accounts over which the City has no control and cannot access. To remedy this situation, the City’s IT Department is in the process of setting up cityofwoburn.com email accounts for each Trustee.” Based on the City’s September 10th response, in conjunction with Ms. Parthasarathy’s September 13th correspondence, it appears Ms. Parthasarathy has received the records responsive to her request. As such, I find that Ms. Parthasarathy’s appeal pertaining to her July 31st request has been resolved. Records management The City’s September 10th response raises questions regarding its records management practices. The City is advised that a custodian of records has an affirmative duty to maintain, secure, and preserve governmental records throughout the records life cycle. As such, safeguards must be instituted by the City to ensure that all records are retained in accordance with both applicable law as well as the retention schedules promulgated by this office. G. L. c. 66, § 8; G. L. c. 66, § 13; G. L. c. 66, § 15.

William Campbell SPR20/1590 Page 3 September 18, 2020 The City is advised that public records, including emails made or received in an individual’s capacity as a government employee, must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 - - - - - (1979). Whenever original public records are created outside the municipal offices, they shall be transferred on a regular and frequent basis to secure storage in the municipal building. Although the City indicates that its IT Department is in the process of remedying the situation, if further guidance in records management and retention is required, the City may contact the Records Management Unit (RMU) at 617-727-2816. The RMU operates under the authority of the Supervisor of Records, assisting state and local government entities in creating, managing, securing, and preserving records needed to conduct business and protect the rights and obligations of citizens and government. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jasmine Parthasarathy