Stephanie Ebbert v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20250914)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 17, 2025 SPR25/0914 Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Stephanie Ebbert, of the Boston Globe, 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 March 11, 2025, Ms. Ebbert requested: [1] All invoices from Regan Communication and/or George Regan since October 1, 2021 All payments to Regan Communication and/or George Regan since October 1, 2021 [2] Requests for proposal for communications services in 2022 and/or 2023 [3] All responses to RFP for communications services Contracts with George Regan and/or Regan Communication beginning after Nov. 30, 2020[.] The City responded on March 31, 2025, and assigned reference number 2025-0203 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Ebbert petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0914, 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. SPR25/0914 Page 2 April 17, 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. Ebbert refers to another separate records request and contends that “[b]oth of our requests have been fulfilled in part. However, the city has failed to provide us three of the items requested.” Ms. Ebbert lists the following two items from her own request, which she claims have not been provided by the City: - The city’s requests for proposal for communications services that led to the hiring of Regan Communications in 2022-2023 - All responses to the RFP for communications services The City’s March 31st Response In its March 31, 2025 response, the City provides numerous responsive records, and states that “[o]nce I receive the other contract documents, I will forward them along.” Timeframe for Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that . . . 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi).

Colleen M. Mejia, Esq. SPR25/0914 Page 3 April 17, 2025 Where Ms. Ebbert submitted her request on March 11, 2025, and the City has not provided the remaining responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the City must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Ebbert with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Ms. Ebbert may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stephanie Ebbert