← Back to Search
Artie Grenier v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20240478)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 02-14-2024
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20240478 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Artie Grenier concerning records held by Framingham, City of, opened 02-14-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20240478
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Artie Grenier
- Custodian
- Framingham, City of
- Date Opened
- 02-14-2024
- Date Closed
- 02-26-2024
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 26, 2024 SPR24/0478 Paul J. Iverson Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iverson: I have received the petition of Artie Grenier 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 3, 2024, Mr. Grenier requested, “…all records that exist and are in the Police Department’s possession of internal affairs and/or misconduct investigations into [an identified officer].” The City provided responses on January 16, 2024 and January 18, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Grenier petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0478, 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. See 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. 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. Iverson SPR24/0478 Page 2 February 26, 2024 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. See 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 January 16th and January 18th responses In its January 16, 2024 response, the City stated, “[t]he City intends to provide these records to you, however responding to this request within 10 business days places an undue burden on the responsibilities of the City. As a result, the City is extending the due date for this request by 15 business days. ” In its January 18, 2024 response, the City stated, “I will remove the hold now.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Grenier states, “…17 work days have passed.” Timeliness of providing records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Whereas Mr. Grenier submitted his request on January 3, 2024, it is unclear why the City has not provided the responsive records. 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, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the outstanding records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide Paul J. Iverson SPR24/0478 Page 3 February 26, 2024 responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Grenier 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. Mr. Grenier may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Artie Grenier