Allison Jenkins v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20243453)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 13, 2025 SPR24/3453 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Allison Jenkins 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 October 10, 2024, Ms. Jenkins made the following request: I want an investigation and I want to receive a copy of the emails submitted to all of [a list of specified individuals] regarding the current investigation (received from [four individuals]). On November 15, 2024, Ms. Jenkins further elaborated on her request as follows: The email sent a few weeks ago asking for the emails where [an individual is] mentioned, attacked, degraded, etc. by fellow employees in emails to other staff is still outstanding. At the very least it should be treated as a FOIA request. The City responded October 10, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Jenkins petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/3453, 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). 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. SPR24/3453 Page 2 January 13, 2025 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. 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Jenkins contends that she has “not received the email messages requested in these two emails on October 10, 2024 and November 15, 2024.” The City’s October 10th Response In its October 10, 2024 response, an employee of the City indicates that they do not possess records responsive to the request. 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. 1784CV02087, 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 the Ms. Jenkins’ original written request and subsequent emails, I find it is unclear what specific records she is seeking. Accordingly, if Ms. Jenkins seeks specific records, 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Jenkins 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).

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR24/3453 Page 3 January 13, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Allison Jenkins