Paula Sterite v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20232974)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2023 SPR23/2974 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Paula Sterite 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 April 3, 2023, Ms. Sterite requested, “…a copy of the 2019 School Space Study done by the [named group].” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/1321 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 28, 2023). In my June 28th determination, I learned that the City intended on providing a response to Ms. Sterite and closed the appeal. On November 28, 23 and November 30, 2023, the City responded and provided responsive records. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Sterite petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2974, 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 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. SPR23/2974 Page 2 December 22, 2023 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. The City’s November 28th and November 30th responses In its November 28, 2023 response, the City stated, “[w]hen I forwarded your email today to Mt Vernon Group, I received an email back that he sent me the documents on August 17. I am attaching that August 17 email and the attachment.” In its November 30, 2023 response, the City stated “[a]ccording to Mt Vernon those are the plans. They have no others.” Current Appeal In her current appeal, Ms. Sterite claims that the City did not provide her with all the responsive records, specifically, an assessment concerning a named high school. Based on the City’s response, in conjunction with Ms. Sterite’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to the 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). 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any additional responsive records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Sterite with a response to the request, provided 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paula Sterite