Geoffrey Epstein v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20240313)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 14, 2024 SPR24/0313 Paul J. Iversen Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Geoffrey Epstein 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). On January 17, 2024, Mr. Epstein requested “copies of all the Mayor updates delivered at City Council meetings since he took office on January 1st, 2022.” The City provided a response on January 31, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Epstein petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0313, 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. Attorney 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Epstein states that “[i]t is obvious, when watching the City Council 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. Iversen SPR24/0313 Page 2 February 14, 2024 meetings, where these updates are given, that the Mayor is reading a document which is the update.” The City’s January 31st response In its January 31, 2024 response, the City states that “[t]here are no records responsive to [Mr. Epstein’s] request.” Unclear if records exist Based on the City’s response and Mr. Epstein’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses 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 records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Epstein 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: Geoffrey Epstein