Joan P. Beckta v. Everett, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20221673)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 2, 2022 SPR22/1673 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway, Room 21 Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Joan Beckta appealing the response of the City of Everett (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 10, 2022, Ms. Beckta requested “the names and email addresses of the members of the Transportation Management Board.” On July 18, 2022, the City responded. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Beckta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1673, 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 agency or municipality 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. Att’y 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. 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

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR22/1673 Page 2 August 2, 2022 The City’s July 18th Response In its July 18, 2022 response, the City stated: The City of Everett does not have records responsive to your inquiry because the Lower Mystic Transportation Management Association (TMA) is not a city department, agency, board or commission. It is a non-profit public private partnership. If you would like to learn more about this organization, please visit the following website that includes information on the members of the Board of Directors: [URL provided]. Current Appeal In her current appeal, Ms. Beckta asserts that “[t]he answers I got are non-responsive and so have become overdue.” In a further response provided by the City on July 21, 2022, the City states: The Lower Mystic TMA is the official name that was adopted by the TMA board that primarily covers Everett, but also covers Charlestown and has the ability to do business in Medford, Malden[,] Chelsea and Revere. Regardless of whatever the newspaper article says, the Lower Mystic TMA is the formal name of what was previously envisioned as the Everett TMA. A TMA is a 401c4 organization which means it is non-profit, and non-governmental organization….[T]he City cannot, through a FOIA request, distribute their personal information or qualifications as they are not public employees nor is the TMA a governmental organization. After the City’s response, Ms. Beckta modified her request and now requests “a document, a list, that says which ‘City of Everett’ employees besides [a named individual] are on the TMA as part of the group that is planning transportation for Everett[.]” Based on the City’s responses, in conjunction with Ms. Beckta’s modified request, it is unclear if the City possesses records that may be responsive to her request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). To the extent that records exist, I find the City must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Beckta with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR22/1673 Page 3 August 2, 2022 within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joan Beckta