Joan P. Beckta v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20222318)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 26, 2022 SPR22/2318 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Joan P. Beckta appealing the response of the City of Everett (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 24, 2022, Ms. Beckta requested “a breakdown of line 1 of the Q1 report.... It is ‘ARPA CSFRF Administrative Expenditures-Staffing’ [and] the same breakdown for Q2, line 1, for the $575,668.00 spent on administrative-staffing.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/2220 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 14, 2022). In my October 14th determination, I closed SPR22/2220 in light of the City’s October 13, 2022 supplemental response. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Beckta further 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 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. SPR22/2318 Page 2 October 26, 2022 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 In her appeal petition, Ms. Beckta contends that “the City sent her some information on FY2023. Just because they sent some info doesn’t mean they answered the public records request [she] made.” Specifically, she argues the following concerning the records provided with the City’s October 13, 2022 response: [Ms. Beckta] requested information on FY2022, specifically, the breakdown of Line 1 of their Q1 and Q2 reports they sent in about ARPA spending. They still have not answered this request. Q1 is defined in the ARPA guidelines as Jan, Feb, Mar 2022. Q2 is defined as Apr, May June 2022. They sent [Ms. Beckta] info on Q1 of FY2023 (July, Aug Sept 2022). The City’s October 13th Response Please be advised 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). However, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In its October 13, 2022 response, the City provides multiple spreadsheets in response to Ms. Beckta’s request. In an email to this office on October 20, 2022, the City elaborates that “the [City’s] Finance Department explains that the federal government is naming the quarters by calendar year instead of fiscal year, so the requestor has what she requested.” Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it has provided all responsive records to Ms. Beckta, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Beckta 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, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR22/2318 Page 3 October 26, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joan P. Beckta