Olufunmilola Shelly v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20221706)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 8, 2022 SPR22/1706 P. J. Iversen Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Olufunmilola Shelly 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 July 20, 2022, Ms. Shelly requested “all emails from residents expressing interest in joining the CPC since May 1 2022 ... any documentation of a due date for CPC applications ... documentation on when the applications were received for CPC ... [and] all applications packets for all applicants as well as the email that is created when a application is received in the system.” The City responded on July 26, 2022, stating that responsive records had previously been provided. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Shelly appealed, and this case 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. 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

P. J. Iversen SPR22/1706 Page 2 August 8, 2022 The City’s July 26th Response In its July 26, 2022 response, the City states that Ms. Shelly “already received anything that would be provided here under previous records requests.” In her appeal petition, Ms. Shelly contends that her request “is not a duplicate request.” Please note that 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). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In a phone conversation with this office on August 8, 2022, a representative for the City confirmed that the City provided the requestor with all emails, applications, and other documentation responsive to the current request in response to four previous requests in May and June, 2022. Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Shelly’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Olufunmilola Shelly