Greg Gallant v. Methuen, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20251130)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 2, 2025 SPR25/1130 Nina I. Schulze, Esq. Second Assistant City Solicitor City of Methuen 41 Pleasant Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Attorney Schulze: I have received the petition of Greg Gallant 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 February 24, 2025, Mr. Gallant requested “Methuen City Council meeting minutes from Executive sessions held during the years 2018 and 2019.” The City responded on March 10 and April 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Gallant petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1130, 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. 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. 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

Nina I. Schulze, Esq. SPR25/1130 Page 2 May 2, 2025 The City’s March 10th and April 23rd Responses In its March 10, 2025 response, the City informed Mr. Gallant that it was in the process of compiling responsive records, but that “… [t]hose records require review by the City Council prior to their approval and public disclosure.” In its April 23, 2025 response, the City provided Mr. Gallant with executive session meeting minutes for April 2, 2018 and August 15, 2018. The City withheld the remaining responsive records, stating: Please be advised that the City Council did not vote to disclose the 2018-2019 meeting minutes. Therefore, these minutes remain privileged. These meeting minutes remain confidential as they concern the attorney-client privilege and the ongoing litigation exception. The record reflects extensive colloquy with the Council’s attorney regarding both legal advice rendered and sought. Current Appeal In his April 23, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Gallant contended that the City’s claim under the attorney-client privilege was insufficiently specific. Mr. Gallant further contended that the ongoing litigation cited by the City was unrelated to the requested records. In an email communication to this office on April 29, 2025, the City clarified its position as follows: For context, in 2017 the City of Methuen and the Methuen Superior Officers Union signed a Collective Bargaining Agreement which included changes to the draft that were not a part of agreed upon negotiations. The Inspector General found, that on two occasions after the negotiations were complete and without Mayor Zanni’s consent [an identified individual] added language to the contract that further increased the superior officers’ total compensation to an exorbitant level. The CBA and the subsequent MOU that were executed were the product of misrepresentations and so unfairly favored the Superior Officer’s Union that it caught the attention of the Inspector General’s office, who after a thorough investigation, issued a report, linked here, that has led to criminal prosecutions and civil litigation that are still ongoing. These investigations and illegal agreements have led to criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits involving the City including (Gallant v. Methuen, Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 2277CV01013; Gallant v. Civil Service Commission and City of Methuen, Suffolk Superior Court Civil Action No. 2484CV03028; Commonwealth vs. Solomon, Joseph, Essex Superior Court Criminal Action No. 2377CR00451; Commonwealth vs. Fountain, Sean J, Essex Superior Court Criminal Action No. 2377CR00449). The above cases are still ongoing and the

Nina I. Schulze, Esq. SPR25/1130 Page 3 May 2, 2025 City remains involved in each of them in various capacities as defendant, witness, and victim … The City Council did not vote to release these Executive Session meeting minutes and is withholding this record as attorney/client privileged because it contains legal advice and litigation strategy sought by the Methuen City Council … regarding the 2017 collective bargaining agreements that remains relevant to and potentially compromising of the City’s litigation goals and strategy. As stated above, these negotiations and subsequent agreements are the subject of several criminal and civil lawsuits. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Suffolk Superior Court and Essex Superior Court. See Gregory Gallant v. City of Methuen, (Superior Court Docket No. 2277CV01013) and Gregory Gallant v. Civil Service Commission and City of Methuen, (Superior Court Docket No. 2484CV03028). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Greg Gallant