Mass Accountability Network v. Salem, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20251102)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 6, 2025 SPR25/1102 James Wellock, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Salem, Legal Department 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney Wellock: I have received the petition of Mass Accountability Network (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Salem (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 4, 2025, the requestor sought the following records: [A]ll records, communications, and internal documents related to my complaint submitted to the Salem Police Department on or around January 20, 2025, titled “Formal Complaint for Policy Violation(s)”, which was acknowledged by your office via email on February 20, 2025. Specifically, I request: 1. All internal communications (emails, memos, texts, or meeting notes) referring to my complaint, including but not limited to communications with: - [a named individual] - The Professional Standards Division - City Legal Department - The Massachusetts POST Commission 2. All versions or drafts of your response(s) to my follow-up emails dated March 3, March 6, and March 7, 2025. 3. Any documents or notes referring to the decision not to investigate my complaint. 4. Any reference to or application of Policy 72: Handling Civil Rights Violations related to this matter. 5. Any records of the complaint file itself, including internal routing, review logs, or disposition records. The City responded on April 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1102, was opened as a result. 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

Joanne M. Roomey SPR25/1102 Page 2 May 6, 2025 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. 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. The City’s April 18th Response In its April 18, 2025 response, the City explains the following: Your records request is too vague and overbroad and not reasonably described. Your request for “all internal communication ... referring to my complaint” is the type of categorical and vague description that the Chawla case . . . states fails to meet the minimum standard for specificity of a public records request. Likewise, it is unclear what is meant by “All versions or drafts of your response(s) to my follow-up emails dated March 3, March 6, and March 7, 2025.” And, categorical requests such as “any documents” or “any notes” or “any records” and categories defined so broadly such as those categories that are described as “including but not limited to” certain examples of information are similarly insufficient. None of your requests in your 4/4 email meet the minimum standard of a reasonable description. Further, Regarding #2, “All versions or drafts of your response(s) to my follow-up emails dated March 3, March 6, and March 7, 2025.” In response, the city additionally states that drafts of emails are not archived. Once an email is sent, it is no longer retained as a draft; therefore, assuming for the sake of argument that a draft was made, we do not archive any responsive ‘draft email’ records. Last, part of your requests appears to vaguely request all communication between certain city employees and their attorneys in the city legal department. Since the request is too vague to respond to, I simply note that, we reserve our right to

Joanne M. Roomey SPR25/1102 Page 3 May 6, 2025 assert the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor contends that “the City failed to: Suggest a reasonable modification of the scope; or Offer any assistance to clarify the request.” Reasonable Description of the Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents 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 judgements about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). This office encourages the requestor and the City to communicate 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, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If the requestor wishes to submit another public records request to the City as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, the requestor may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Joanne M. Roomey SPR25/1102 Page 4 May 6, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mass Accountability Network