Phil Laffy v. Salem, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20242107)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 6, 2024 SPR24/2107 Joanne M. Roomey Records Access Officer City of Salem – Legal Department 143 Fort Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Roomey: I have received the petition of Philip Laffy appealing the response of the City of Salem (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 27, 2024, Mr. Laffy requested the following records related to the City’s parking program’s “finances . . . for the last 3 fiscal years and the projections for FY23 and FY24[:]” [1.] Parking garage revenue for each garage per annum[;] [2.] Parking Lot/meter revenue per annum[;] [3.] Violation revenue collected listed by each violation type and the number of total paid violations by violation type. Both per annum[;] [4.] Any other revenue stream enjoyed by the City Parking Department listed by revenue stream type and amount per stream per annum[.] The City provided a response on June 28, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Laffy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2107, 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. 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

Joanne M. Roomey SPR24/2107 Page 2 August 6, 2024 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. 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 June 28th Response In its June 28, 2024 response, the City states that it is “working on compiling the information regarding your request and . . . will need an additional 10 business days to provide the requested information. With the additional 10 business days requested, the date due will be on or before July 17, 2024.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Laffy states, “I received nothing from the June 27 request. . . . I was able to find [Items] . . . 1 and 2 on my own. No answers or information related to [Items] . . . 3 and 4.” Timeframe for Producing 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). Where the request was submitted on June 27, 2024, and the City has not provided any of the responsive records, I find that the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Consequently, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to

Joanne M. Roomey SPR24/2107 Page 3 August 6, 2024 complete the search and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Laffy 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. Laffy 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: Philip Laffy