Colman Herman v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20250327)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 14, 2025 SPR25/0327 Romina Moniz, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Moniz: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 18, 2025, Mr. Herman requested: [1] Records of any and all expenses that [a named individual] incurred in his capacity as mayor of the City of New Bedford for the period January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. [a] Expense reports, including back-up receipts [b] Credit cards statements, including back-up receipts [c] Automobile expense records, including back-up receipts [d] Any and all other records that document [the Mayor’s] expenses, including back-up receipts. Please note that I am seeking both source documents and a spreadsheet or summary of the expenses. [2] The written employee reimbursement policy of the City of New Bedford. The City provided a response on February 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0327, 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 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

Romina Moniz, Esq. SPR25/0327 Page 2 February 14, 2025 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. The City’s February 3rd Response In its February 3, 2025 response, the City states: In accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Chawla decision, part one of your request lacks sufficient particularly and includes, at a minimum, all expenses incurred by the Mayor’s Office and by the City during the timeframe requested. Part one of your request calls for administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of material requested. As such, part one of your request does not comply with the statutory standard. To the extent it is responsive, you may access the City’s budget for FY2024 by visiting the Annual Budgets tab on the Chief Financial Officer’s webpage: https://www.newbedford-ma.gov/chief-financial-office/annualbudgets/; where requested records are available on an appropriately indexed and searchable public website, a records access officer may furnish the public records by aiding the requestor in locating the records on the website. As such, the City has done so. Current Appeal In his current appeal, Mr. Herman states, “I have used this very same template for seeking the expense records of countless public officials, including those of the governor and the attorney general. Every single official produced their expense records.” 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

Romina Moniz, Esq. SPR25/0327 Page 3 February 14, 2025 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.” In this case, Mr. Herman has provided specific descriptions of the records he is seeking, including a date range, a specifically named individual and the category of records sought, that being expenses. As such, I find that he has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents he is seeking. To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. This office encourages Mr. Herman and the City to continue communicating 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 Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Herman with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman