Laura H. Ortiz v. Lynn, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20220189)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 28, 2022 SPR22/0189 James P. Lamanna, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Lynn Lynn City Hall 3 City Hall Square; Room 406 Lynn, MA 01901 Dear Attorney Lamanna: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the City of Lynn (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 26, 2022, Ms. Ortiz stated: 1. What is the entire document where this name, signature and address Election Commission single (ortiz.pdf) record came from, and what “petition” or other was this collected for? In addition, we would like a copy also of the entire records 1st five pages; and the single (ortiz.pdf) page for this “petition” or other records we identified . . . 2. What was the “header” and/or “written reason” for the entire “petition” or other Election Commission record that contained this single (ortiz.pdf) record within? In addition, we would like a copy also of the entire records “header” and/or “written reason” page(s) if not included in the 1st five pages and the single (ortiz.pdf) page (1 above) for this “petition” or other records we identified . . . 3. If this was “petition” or other entire record containing this single (ortiz.pdf) record, then is this a record for a “nominee” or “public hearing” Election Commission record? In addition, we would like a copy also of the entire record pages that show if this was for a “nominee” or “public hearing” if this was not included already in the 1st five pages and the single (ortiz.pdf) page, or the “header” and/or “written reason” page(s) (1-2 above) for this “petition” or other records we identified . . . 4. Is there a “certified by the Election Commission” record of this exact (ortiz.pdf) page document (verifying that each person who’s [sic] signature appears on the petition is a “registered voter” in the City of Lynn)? What date was this “petition” or other submitted into the Election Commission and what date was 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

James P. Lamanna, Esq. SPR22/0189 Page 2 January 28, 2022 it then certified by your office (especially in regards to ortiz.pdf page)? In addition, we would like a copy also of the document pages that show if the City of Lynn Election Commission certificated this entire record pages, and also certified the single (ortiz.pdf) page, and also certified if this was for a “nominee” or “public hearing” of this, and all applicable dates, if this was not included already in the 1st five pages and the ortiz.pdf page, or the “header” and/or “written reason” page(s), or the “nominee” or “public hearing” pages (1-3 above) for this “petition” or other records we identified . . . 5. If this was just a “petition” or other record that never even made its way to the Election Commission, then what was the Cities reasoning why this did not satisfy the “petition” or other standards? May we have a copy responsive record to this not satisfy the “petition” or other Election Commission standards, if this was not included already in the 1st five pages and the ortiz.pdf page, or the “header” and/or “written reason” page(s), or the “nominee” or “public hearing” pages, or Election Commission “certified” pages (1-4 above) for this “petition” or other records we identified . . . On January 27, 2022, a representative from the City directed Ms. Ortiz to forward the public records request to the City’s Records Access Officer (RAO). Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0189, 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. 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 On January 27, 2022, Ms. Ortiz was informed “[s]ince this is a ‘public records information request’, please be advised that Attorney James Lamanna is the City of Lynn’s

James P. Lamanna, Esq. SPR22/0189 Page 3 January 28, 2022 Public Records Access Officer. Please forward all public records requests to Attorney Lamanna. Attorney Lamanna’s email address is jlamanna@lynnma.gov.” In her appeal petition, Ms. Ortiz states “[w]e appropriately sent a public records request yesterday 1/26/22 to the City of Lynn Elections Commission, today in writing it DENIED our public records request. . . .” Ms. Ortiz is advised that “written requests may be delivered by a requester to the business address or designated website or email address of a records access officer or custodian.” See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(c). Where Ms. Ortiz was informed to direct all public records requests to the City’s RAO, it is unclear the basis of her appeal. 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 Ms. Ortiz in her appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If Ms. Ortiz 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: Laura Ortiz