Shelby Lee v. Easthampton, City of (SPR 20250174)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2025 SPR25/0174 Barbara L. LaBombard Records Access Officer City of Easthampton 50 Payson Avenue Easthampton, MA 01027 Dear Ms. LaBombard: I have received the petition of Shelby Lee, of The Shoestring, appealing the response of the City of Easthampton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 23, 2024, Shelby Lee requested the following: [1] Any and all complaints submitted to the city, to city municipal bodies, or to elected officials related to Parks and Recreation Commissioners and/ or appointment or reappointment of Parks and Recreation Commissioners from Dec. 2023 through Dec. 23, 2024. [2] Any communications, documents, or records — including but not limited to text messages, phone records, emails with their complete corresponding threads and attachments — related to the above mentioned between city employees, city elected officials, or city municipal body members from Dec. 2023 through Dec. 23, 2024. [3] A copy of the four complaints regarding a Parks and Recreation Commissioner that [a named individual] referenced during the Dec. 18, 2024 City Council meeting. [4] All communications -- including but not limited to text messages, phone records, and emails with their complete corresponding threads and attachments -- to and from City Councilor [a named individual] from June 01, 2024 through Dec. 23, 2024. The City responded on January 6, 2025, and in numerous subsequent emails. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Shelby Lee petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0174, was opened as a result. 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

Barbara L. LaBombard SPR25/0174 Page 2 February 3, 2025 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. 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 January 6, 2025 response, the City provided numerous responsive records. Additionally the City sought clarification concerning Items 1 and 2 of the request. Regarding Item 1, the City states “I was unable to find any information without additional keywords to narrow the search results - I don’t have email addresses of commissioners - their names are included in every email/agenda.” Regarding Item 2, the City states “[t]he search is too broad to retrieve meaningful results. Additional keywords are needed to narrow the search.” In further responses, on January 7, 8, and 10, 2025, the City provided additional responsive records and indicates that it does not possess responsive records for numerous individuals. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, Shelby Lee states the following: On January 13 Lee ... responded via email reiterating their commitment to resolving confusion around the request with [a representative of the City], highlighting ways in which the records could be more manageable to provide, and offering again to connect via phone. . . . It is evident from the responses provided that [a representative of the City] not only withheld, but explicitly stated, that he did not possess records responsive to the request that he did in fact possess and have direct knowledge and custody of. [The representative of the City] at no point claimed to be withholding the responsive records nor cite a statutory reason for withholding these records.

Barbara L. LaBombard SPR25/0174 Page 3 February 3, 2025 [The City] nor the IT Department responded to attempts to collaboratively work with the requestor, The Shoestring/ Shelby Lee, to further clarify or modify the request to produce the records efficiently or identify a reasonable timeframe for doing so beyond asking for a modification by “keyword.” Additionally to my knowledge I do not believe the public records law allows the records custodian to determine what public records being sought are or are not “meaningful” to the requestor. Moreover, from the incomplete response I have received from the City so far, there is clear evidence that members of the City Council and other municipal bodies have routinely violated open meeting law by creating a quorum in email correspondence related directly to municipal business. . . . Lastly, from the records provided, and from public testimony collected in public forums and directly from individuals communicating with [the City], it is clear that responsive records have been omitted from multiple areas of the request without any statutory reason for doing so. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and

Barbara L. LaBombard SPR25/0174 Page 4 February 3, 2025 (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Shelby Lee and the City to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Shelby Lee and the City communicate further as described above, Shelby Lee may file an additional appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Shelby Lee