FU Spotlight Team v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20212395)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 1, 2021 SPR21/2395 Todd C. Palmer Super RAO City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Room B-37 Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Palmer: I have received the petition of FU Spotlight Team appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 2, 2021, FU Spotlight Team requested, “…all emails sent or received by [named individuals], which contain the text ‘Message from’ in the subject line. Date range to search 7/1/2021 - 9/2/2021.” The City responded on September 15, 2021. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, FU Spotlight Team petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2395, 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 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) (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…”); 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). 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

Todd C. Palmer SPR21/2395 Page 2 October 1, 2021 The City’s September 15th Response In its September 15, 2021 response, the City stated that, “[t]he reasons for [the] extension [are] as follows: [n]ot all individuals on the records request have been or are available, and unable to fulfill [the] request while absent, so we are extending the due date by the 15 days allowed under [Massachusetts law] to complete this records request. We will do our best to fill before the 15 days expire!” Current appeal In their September 17th appeal, FU Spotlight Team stated that, “[r]esponding on the second to last day that they need more time because individuals are out does not make sense. These absences (if they were real absences at all) are scheduled – the City should have tried harder and not waited until the last moment.” Where the City has indicated that they intend to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of FU Spotlight Team’s appeal. See G.L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by FU Spotlight Team in their appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If FU Spotlight Team is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: FU Spotlight Team