Joan P. Beckta v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20241992)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 25, 2024 SPR24/1992 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 April 18, 2024, Ms. Beckta requested, “plans for the Armory Renovations.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/1937 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 11, 2024). In my July 11th determination, I closed the appeal after I learned that the City provided Ms. Beckta with a response on July 11, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Beckta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1992, 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 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. SPR24/1992 Page 2 July 25, 2024 or redacted portion of the responsive record. The City’s July 11th Response In its July 11, 2024 response, the City states, “the Connolly Center funds are currently listed as a Capital Improvement Line item and are awaiting approval by the Council. As for grant funding, we have applied for two grants for the Connolly Center roof, weatherization, and HVAC upgrades. One grant is the Communities Sparking Investment in Transformative Energy: Resilient Everett, where we proposed a $3 million project to replace the roof, weatherize the building, and upgrade all heating and cooling equipment to highly efficient heat pumps.… The second grant is the EPA Community Change Grants Program, a regional effort with local nonprofits and three surrounding municipalities to create a climate resiliency hub. This $5 million project will upgrade the roof, weatherization, and HVAC units and will install solar and battery storage to help during emergencies.” Current Appeal In her appeal to this office, Ms. Beckta states, “I asked for the PLANS that the line in the CIP budget is supposed to fund. What is the $7.5 million supposed to buy us? … Further, how do they know that sum will be enough for what they want to do, if they don’t know what they want to do? All I know for sure is that the roof needs work. Again, if you can think of any way in which I could word my request differently … I’d appreciate it.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought A request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id. Based on Ms. Beckta’s original written request for “plans for the Armory Renovations,” and based on the information provided in her appeal petition, I find it is unclear what specific records she is seeking. Accordingly, if Ms. Beckta seeks specific records regarding the plans, she may wish to clarify her written request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought).

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR24/1992 Page 3 July 25, 2024 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Beckta wishes to submit an additional public records request to the City, and is unsatisfied with the response, she may appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joan P. Beckta