Charles Teague v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20231672)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 27, 2023 SPR23/1672 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Charles D. Teague appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 23, 2023, Mr. Teague requested: [1] Documents from Barrett Tree Service East delivered to the City of Cambridge from January 1, 2023 to the present day. In particular: [a] All contracts, proposals, and invoices from Barrett Tree Service East to and with the City of Cambridge; and, [b] All reports and drafts of reports concerning work performed by Barrett Tree Service along, in, or nearby the so-called “Linear Park” in North Cambridge spanning approximately from RindgeAvenue/Route 16, crossing Harvey Street, crossing Massachusetts Avenue (and/or Cedar Street), crossing Cameron Avenue, and ending at the Somerville boundary. The City provided a response on July 17, 2023, providing certain records and withholding others pursuant to Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Teague petitioned the Supervisor of Records, and this appeal 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 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

Ms. Seah Levy SPR23/1672 Page 2 July 27, 2023 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). Subsequent to the opening of this administrative appeal, the City provided Mr. Teague and this office with a July 26th response. The City’s July 26th response indicates, “[a]s of July 24, 2023, the requested records have now been finalized. Please find attached supplemental records which are responsive to [Request 1(b)] of your request. Attached please find records responsive to this request. Additionally, photos which accompany this report may be found online here. (link: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HnypwRWzaxWTVQdR7).” Conclusion Accordingly, whereas the City provided Mr. Teague with all the responsive records, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Charles Teague