Frank Wood v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20222759)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 14, 2022 SPR22/2759 Paul J. Iverson City Clerk City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iverson: I have received the petition of Frank Wood appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Wood requested “…the Human Relations Commission meeting video from … 11/10/22. It can be posted publicly in lieu of posting to this request. Otherwise send it.” The City responded on November 29, 2022. As a result of the City’s November 29th response, Mr. Wood petitioned the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor), and this appeal was opened. 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) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 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). 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 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

Paul J. Iverson SPR22/2759 Page 2 December 14, 2022 custodian must provide the responsive records. The City’s November 29th response In its November 29, 2022 response, the City asserts, “[t]he [City] is in receipt of [your request]. The City intends to provide this record to you if it exists; however, due to the need to collect the record from non-City employees, responding to this request within 10 business days places an undue burden on the responsibilities of the City. As a result, the deadline for this request has been extended by 15 business days…” Current appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Wood asserts, “[t]he video is directly in relation to [the City’s Human Rights Commission’s Open Meeting Law violation complaint that has been filed…” In addition, Mr. Wood asserts, “[t]hey claim they need to reach out to an outside party. Have they done that already?” The City has indicated in its November 29th response that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe that the City is required to provide a response to the request. The City initially responded on November 29th that it needed to extend the deadline until December 21st to respond to the request. Where the City has indicated that they intend to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of Mr. Woods’ appeal relative to the timeframe in responding to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein). Based upon a December 13th conversation between a senior attorney in the Public Records Division and the City’s Records Access Officer, it is my understanding that the City has contacted the Human Relations Commission (Commission) to obtain the requested November 10, 2022 video recording of the Commission’s meeting; if it exists. The City has indicated to this office that it will follow-up with the Commission again, and provide a further response to Mr. Wood regarding his request. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Wood with a further response to his request in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Paul J. Iverson SPR22/2759 Page 3 December 14, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Frank Wood