James M. Crowley v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20243398)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 6, 2025 SPR24/3398 Seah Levy Office of the City Clerk City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Patrick Hanley, Esq., of Butters Brazilian LLP, on behalf of James Crowley appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 27, 2024, Mr. Crowley requested, “... copies of all emails, correspondence, reports, notes, photographs, recording, and any other item related to, created as a result of, or provided, in connections with Cambridge Police Department Professional Standards Unit, Staff Investigation SI-2018-004.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR24/2827 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 24, 2024). In my October 24th determination, I learned that the City provided Mr. Crowley with a response on October 15, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s October 15, 2024 response, Attorney Hanley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3398, 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

Seah Levy SPR24/3398 Page 2 January 6, 2025 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 October 15th response In the City October 15, 2024 response, the City provided responsive records with redactions and also withheld certain pages from an identified report and cited Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law in support of the redactions and withholding. The City also referenced a pending administrative proceeding and stated, “[t]hese records are the subject of ongoing litigation in the matter of CPSOA and City of Cambridge; MUP-22-9551.” Active Administrative Proceeding 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In an email dated December 31, 2024, the City advised that the requested records are directly related to the active administrative proceeding, Cambridge Police Superior Officers’ Association (CPSOA) v. City of Cambridge, which is pending before the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) Docket No. MUP-22-9551. In light of the pending administrative proceeding, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(1). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (d) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(1).

Seah Levy SPR24/3398 Page 3 January 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Hanley, Esq.