Michael D. O'Farrell v. Fitchburg, City of (SPR 20240457)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 27, 2024 SPR24/0457 Joanna Bilotta-Simeone City Clerk City of Fitchburg 718 Main Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Dear Ms. Bilotta-Simeone: I have received the petition of Michael D. O’Farrell appealing the response of the City of Fitchburg (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 1, 2023, Mr. O’Farrell requested “data showing the salary, wages and compensation paid to individual employees and contractors of the City of Fitchburg by name.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/2864 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 12, 2023). In my December 12th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. O’Farrell with a further response to his request. Subsequently, the City responded on January 11, 2024, giving explanations of records it had already provided, and providing additional records. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. O’Farrell appealed, and this case 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 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

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR24/0457 Page 2 February 27, 2024 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. O’Farrell refers back to a January 15, 2024 email to this office, in which he contends the following: Since every pay stub for every municipal employee and contractor includes the majority of the information sought in the initial MPRL request and the pay stub is a government record prepared at taxpayer expense, [the Supervisor is] requested to ORDER the immediate production of the most recent (date closest to date of actual response) payroll pay stub run by/for individual employee or contractor. The City’s January 11th Response In its previous responses, the City provided printouts showing the names and salaries of City employees, along with documents explaining retirement deductions and medical insurance contributions. In its January 11, 2024, the City gives further explanation of the previously provided records, and also provides a link to copies of the City’s collective bargaining agreements. Unclear Appeal Based on the foregoing, where Mr. O’Farrell originally sought “data showing the salary, wages and compensation paid to individual employees and contractors of the City of Fitchburg by name,” and now in his appeal petition seeks the “payroll pay stub” for each individual employee, I find that the basis of Mr. O’Farrell’s appeal is unclear. In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Mr. O’Farrell is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). In this case, Mr. O’Farrell has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10. Conclusion Based on the above, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed.

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR24/0457 Page 3 February 27, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael D. O’Farrell