Joan P. Beckta v. Everett, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20242730)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 15, 2024 SPR24/2730 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. Office of the City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway, Room 21 Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Joan 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 August 14, 2024, Ms. Beckta requested, “[t]he report . . . showing actual recipients of any part of the $400,000 we had ABCD administer for Everett for rent/mortgage assistance. . . .” The City provided a response on September 12, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Beckta petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2730, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that the City provided two supplemental responses by email to Ms. Beckta and this office on October 7, 2024. In an email to this office and the City on the same date, Ms. Beckta objected to the City’s supplemental responses. 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. 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. SPR24/2730 Page 2 October 15, 2024 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 Responses In its September 12, 2024 response, the City stated, “[w]e have completed the work in reference to your request” and provided a three (3) page unredacted PDF titled, “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING for Delivery of Emergency Housing Assistance Services Between the CITY OF EVERETT and Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.” In the first of two supplemental responses dated October 7, 2024, the City provided four (4) PDFs. Each PDF contained a payment log organized into five columns, including a redacted column of information titled, “Applicant Name[.]” In its second supplemental response on the same day, the City claimed Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law in support of its redactions: The City is withholding the names of recipients in light of the privacy interests relative to such matters under Exemption (c). . . . In response to your request, the City has carefully considered the information requested in light of Exemption (c), and considered the factors set forth in the PETA case. . . . After this careful, individualized review, the City has determined that such records, which contain highly personal information regarding financial assistance provided by the City and their personal financial information, will be withheld at this time pursuant to exemption (c) to protect the individuals’ privacy interests. Subsequent to the City’s October 7, 2024 supplemental responses, I learned that the City confirmed with this office that it is not in possession of any additional records responsive to this request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Beckta states the following: I asked for who got rent or mortgage assistance out of the $400,000 we set aside in 2022. . . . We had ABCD administer the program; we should have held them accountable. There should be SOMETHING ABCD sent the city on how they distributed almost half a million dollars! . . . What they sent me was the agreement with ABCD. Following the City’s October 7, 2024 supplemental responses, in an email to this office and the City on the same day, Ms. Beckta objected to the City’s supplemental responses and stated, “[l]og 4 is unacceptable. It has almost no dates on it. It could be anything.”

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR24/2730 Page 3 October 15, 2024 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Where the City has confirmed that it has no additional responsive records in its possession, I find that Ms. Beckta’s appeal regarding the August 14th request is resolved. Conclusion Accordingly, where the City has confirmed that it does not possess additional records, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Ms. Beckta is advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joan Beckta