PeanutButterJelly20 x v. Methuen, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20250977)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 11, 2025 SPR25/0977 Anne Drouin City Clerk City of Methuen 41 Pleasant Street Searles Building, Room 112 Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Ms. Drouin: I have received the petition of PeanutButterJelly20 (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Methuen (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 13, 2025, the requestor sought, “the minutes of the City Council Executive [S]ession meeting held on February 21, 2017.” The City provided responses on March 27 and April 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0977, 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. 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

Anne Drouin SPR25/0977 Page 2 April 11, 2025 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 27th and April 8th Reponses In its March 27, 2025 response, the City stated: The City is compiling the records responsive to your request. Those records require review by the City Council prior to their approval/public disclosure. Therefore, the City will need a minimum of an additional thirty (30) days from receipt of this correspondence for the Council to compile and review those records … Once the Council has met and made the required determinations on the Executive Session meeting minutes you have requested, the City will further respond to your request. In its subsequent March 27, 2025 response, the City informed the requestor, “[t]he request Request Number: PRR-2025-115 has been completed.” In its April 8, 2025 response, the City stated: The Council did not enter into executive session on Monday night. They have deferred the executive session until their next meeting. The next City Council meeting will take place on Tuesday April 22, 2025. Once the Council makes a decision, we will reach back out to you with their decision. Current Appeal In her April 9, 2025 petition to this office, the requestor stated: I formally request that the City of Methuen be compelled to produce the minutes of the February 21, 2017 executive session post haste, not waiting for the next regular meeting of the council on April 22nd … I would also like [to] file an open meeting law violation, [regarding] Executive Session Meeting Records, against the [C]ity for voting not to [enter] into [an] executive session to review the minutes for [the] FOIA request for said minutes. Open Meeting Law The nature of the request and the City’s responses raise issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an

Anne Drouin SPR25/0977 Page 3 April 11, 2025 interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address this issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. If unresolved issues remain, I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: PeanutButterJelly20