MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Brian DeLacey v. Malden, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20220121)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 01-19-2022

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20220121 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Brian DeLacey concerning records held by Malden, City of - Office of the City Clerk, opened 01-19-2022. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20220121
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Brian DeLacey
Custodian
Malden, City of - Office of the City Clerk
Date Opened
01-19-2022
Date Closed
01-27-2022
Date Request Submitted
01-03-2022
Response Provided Date
01-18-2022

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 27, 2022 SPR22/0121 Greg Lucey City Clerk City of Malden 215 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Mr. Lucey: I have received the petition of Brian DeLacey appealing the response of the City of Malden (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 3, 2022, Mr. DeLacey requested, “all records – emails, letters, calendar/Outlook notations, forms, reports, opinions – sent or received by the Tax Assessor or any city employee in that Office – related to Mystic Valley Regional Charter School – from 1/1/20 to the date…” The City provided a response on January 18, 2022. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. DeLacey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0121, 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); 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. The City’s January 18th Response In its January 18, 2022 response, the City requested that Mr. DeLacey agree to an 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

Greg Lucey SPR22/0121 Page 2 January 27, 2022 extension for the date of the response to the request. The City explained that “understaffing in the Assessor’s Office and the incapacity of key staff members due to COVID and COVID- related issues has made it impossible to respond within the allotted time. At present, we would ask for an extension of 5 business days…” Current Appeal In his current appeal, Mr. DeLacey stated, “I…seek clarification from the Supervisor on the allowable time for a response under 950 CMR 32.00. It is unclear to me if the City of Malden is consistently applying due dates for requests. For [the current public records request], at one time the City of Malden official public records dashboard indicated a response to this request was due by 1/25/22 (Exhibit 2). At another time the request was marked as due by 1/19/22 (Exhibit 1). Based on my own calculation (Exhibit 5), a response was due by 1/18/22.” Where the City has indicated they intend to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of Mr. DeLacey’s appeal. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (stating that a municipality may identify a reasonable timeframe not to exceed 25 business days in which the municipality shall produce public records sought). 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 Mr. DeLacey in his appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If Mr. DeLacey 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, § l0A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Brian DeLacey