Joan P. Beckta v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20240292)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 8, 2024 SPR24/0292 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 30, 2023, Ms. Beckta requested “[a] copy of a 2019/2020 study by Mt. Vernon Group on the suitability of Pope John as a middle/vocational school, as paid for by the attached check copy.” Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/2464 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 30, 2023) and SPR23/2933 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 18, 2023). In my December 18th determination, I found that it was unclear if the City possessed additional records responsive to the request. On January 30, 2024, the City responded and provided Ms. Beckta with a responsive record. Claiming that the City did not provide her with all the responsive records, Ms. Beckta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0292, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on January 30, 2024. 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). 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. SPR24/0292 Page 2 February 8, 2024 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. 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. The City’s Responses In its November 30, 2023 response, the City provided Ms. Beckta with a response, which included a responsive records. In its January 30, 2024 supplemental response, the City stated, “[the City] just sent [Ms. Beckta] the Pope John document sent to the City from Mt. Vernon at 1:29PM. I’m not sure why [she is] appealing after I sent [her] the document… There have been hundreds of public records requests and appeals filed by [Ms. Beckta], so it is often difficult to track responses. Sometimes documents are left off responses inadvertently. There is nothing nefarious happening.” Current Appeal In her current appeal, Ms. Beckta claims that the City did not provide her with all the responsive records. In response to the City’s January 30th statement, Ms. Beckta sent this office an email on January 30, 2024, and stated, “I got an email from the [the City] telling the SPR that [it] had sent me everything the city had on [the request]… [t]he problem is, although the document has the same title as the third attachment… it doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s just five pages of floor plans. How is that an ‘assessment,’ as described in the PO and billing?... There’s also the problem of [the City] telling the SPR [it] had sent me ‘everything’… I think I still don’t have everything…” Based on the City’s responses, in conjunction with Ms. Beckta’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the City must clarify if it possesses “an ‘assessment,’ as described in the PO and billing?...” 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.

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR24/0292 Page 3 February 8, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Beckta 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: Joan P. Beckta