Joyce Rowley v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20250668)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2025 SPR25/0668 Romina Moniz Administrative Manager Central Records Access Officer City of New Bedford – Solicitor’s Office 133 William Street, Room 203 New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Ms. Moniz: I have received the petition of Joyce Rowley 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 February 6, 2025, Ms. Rowley requested the following: [1] Any and all written or recorded correspondence, including phone logs, texts and email, by and between city employees to include the New Bedford Police Department, Buttonwood Zoo employees, and Buttonwood Park Zoological Society employees for the period December 8, 2024 to the time of fulfillment regarding any incidents leading up to the Harassment Protection Order for [an identified individual] issued December 5, 2024[;] [2] New Bedford Police Department body camera videos of their interactions with [an identified individual] during two incidents at Buttonwood Park on December 8, 2024 and December 27, 2024. On February 21, 2025, the City provided a response. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Rowley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0668, 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, 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 SPR25/0668 Page 2 March 17, 2025 § 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 21st Response In its February 21, 2025 response, regarding Item 1 of the request, the City indicated that it “previously provided a response to [Ms. Rowley] for the same request on December 23, 2024, which included a good-faith fee estimate.” Regarding Item 2 of the request, the City stated, “after completing a search, the City has identified two responsive records matching the specifications provided in [Ms. Rowley’s] request.” The City further noted that it, “requires additional time to produce the records in a medium that can be shared and viewed by the general public and will be providing [Ms. Rowley] with a response within 25 business days from receipt of [her] request.” Current Appeal In her March 7, 2025 petition, Ms. Rowley clarifies that she does not seek to appeal the City’s response to Item 1 of her request. However, she appeals the City’s response to Item 2 of her request and states, “there is no ambiguity in the second part of my request for body camera videos. And no reason it should take 35 [sic] business days to comply.” Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, the basis of Ms. Rowley’s appeal is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein). Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given

Romina Moniz SPR25/0668 Page 3 March 17, 2025 that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Ms. Rowley in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Ms. Rowley receives the response she may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joyce Rowley