Deborah Riley v. Quincy, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20250955)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 18, 2025 SPR25/0955 James S. Timmins, Esq. City Solicitor City of Quincy 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Attorney Timmins: I have received the petition of Deborah Riley appealing the response of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 4, 2024, Ms. Riley requested, “the bid responses and any publicly available supporting information for the bid project entitled: sculpture(s) for the Massachusetts Tribe at Ponkapoag three sisters statute project[,] as well as any invoices, statements, change orders or project status information for this purchase.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/0250 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2025) and SPR25/0509 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 5, 2025). In my March 5th determination, I learned that the City intended on providing Ms. Riley with a supplemental response. The City responded on March 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Riley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0955, 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 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

James S. Timmins, Esq. SPR25/0955 Page 2 April 18, 2025 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 March 28th response In its March 28, 2025 response, the City states: You will find attached electronic copies of all documents in the [C]ity’s possession that are responsive to Ms. Riley’s request quoted in the first paragraph of the March 5th letter. The first six attachments have been in the possession of Ms. Riley for over a month; I did not review the MuniFi response, added today; I understand it duplicates documents previously sent. I am also including below an email chain, which provides the sequence of responses in this matter. You will note the initial response ‐ the December 6 email below ‐ came two days after the request. Current Appeal In her appeal to this office, Ms. Riley states: These public records requests are one in the same for all emails and communications between the City of Quincy representatives, … as well as all communications and documentation with the ‘tribe representatives’ occurring between the bid closing date of March 28, 2024 and my initial request date of December 4, 2024. I am also requesting the ‘letter of intent’ that was provided to the tribe representatives according to a Patriot Ledger article on December 6, 2022 where the city agreed to provide a ‘Three Sisters’ statue[,] among other promised tribal recognition in the City of Quincy. The response has not included any communications between the city officials, tribe members and the two artists regarding this change in scope and current status of where the project stands. It is my understanding that the city is working to secure a site currently under the control of the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Further, according to the payments provided, a ‘maquette’ has been produced by the artist and presented to the stakeholders for approval and there have been meetings between those parties. Surely there are emails, drawings, documentary materials or data to support these activities.

James S. Timmins, Esq. SPR25/0955 Page 3 April 18, 2025 I have attached several of the email chains for your further review relative to the history of this request. The most detailed of my position is the further appeal email dated February 20, 2025. No Duty to Create Records Please note that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the City on April 17, 2025, the City confirmed that it searched for and has found no additional responsive records to Ms. Riley’s request. Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Riley’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Riley 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: Deborah Riley