Timothy Ryan v. Amesbury, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20250282)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2025 SPR25/0282 Jennifer Smith City Clerk City of Amesbury 62 Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Smith: I have received the petition of Timothy Ryan appealing the response of the City of Amesbury (City) to three requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 7, 2025 and January 10, 2025, Mr. Ryan requested copies of communications between several identified individuals. The City provided a response on January 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0282, 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. Att’y 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. 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

Jennifer Smith SPR25/0282 Page 2 February 3, 2025 The City’s January 10th Response In its January 10, 2025 response, the City informed Mr. Ryan that it was unable to read portions of his requests, and sought clarification as to what information he was seeking. Current Appeal In his January 30, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Ryan characterized the City as unwilling to provide him with responsive records. In a January 31, 2025 telephone call to this office, the City confirmed that it was unable to read portions of Mr. Ryan’s requests, and that it was unclear, based on the legible portions, what records he was seeking. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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. l 784CV02087, 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.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, and where the City is unable to read portions of Mr. Ryan’s requests, I find that the requests do not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Ryan may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Ryan has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Mr. Ryan and the City to communicate 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).

Jennifer Smith SPR25/0282 Page 3 February 3, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Ryan is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Timothy Ryan