Promotions Only v. Pittsfield, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20201665)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 24, 2020 SPR20/1665 Michele Benjamin City Clerk City of Pittsfield 70 Allen Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Benjamin: I have received the petition of “Promotions Only” appealing the response of the City of Pittsfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 14, 2020, the requestor sought the following records: [1] . . . a copy of the list of companies, along with monetary contribution values, that received grind from the city as part of a[] Covid business continuation program. [2] [C]opies of all applications presented to the city for such funds. These funds may be part of city block grants, PPP funding, or grants given through the office of community development. [3] Any and all correspondence between various departments, councilors, and the mayor’s office and or any appointed proxies of her office with regard to the disbursement of funds. . . . Previous appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/1535 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 10, 2020). SPR20/1535 was closed after the Department provided the requestor with a response on September 10, 2020, which included responsive records. Claiming to not have received all the requested records, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1665, was opened as a result. 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 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

Michele Benjamin SPR20/1665 Page 2 September 24, 2020 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 provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Current appeal In the City’s September 10, 2020 response, it provided certain responsive records. In the appeal petition, the requestor states that the provided records “. . . do[] not contain the larger and more detailed and requested information . . . I see no copies of the information as requested [in items 2 and 3]. All that has been presented is the list of companies and disbursements. . . . ” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that on September 22, 2020, the City provided the requestor with a supplemental response which included responsive records pertaining to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: “Promotions Only”