Frank Wood v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20251172)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 8, 2025 SPR25/1172 Paul J. Iversen City Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Frank Wood, of Framingham Forward, appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 11, 2025, Mr. Wood made the following request: The Human Relations Commission met on 4/20/2025 and the meeting was recorded. You see in the meeting, when joining it announced “recording in progress” and the little record light showed in the top left corner of the app. That said, this means a[n] official record was created. As such [Mr. Wood] is seeking the recorded video of the meeting. In lieu of sending via the FOIA system, you can publicly post it. The City responded on April 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Wood petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1172, 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 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

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1172 Page 2 May 8, 2025 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 28th Response In its April 28, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he City of Framingham is in receipt of the above-referenced records request. The City intends to provide these records to you, however responding to this request within 10 business days places an undue burden on the responsibilities of the City. As a result, the City is extending the due date for this request by 15 business days.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Wood states “[a]ll our requests are on the 10th business day are treated this way by the city. On the last day they say our request is an undue burden and will be another 15 business days. They now on each and every request that they do this to will get a state appeal because ‘undue burden’ doesn’t tell us why they can’t comply with the law, just that they are choosing not to… [sic]” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) Pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi), a records access officer may 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. Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, 25 business days from the date of the request, the City has until May 19, 2025, to provide a response to Mr. Wood’s request. Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A (a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Wood in his appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Mr. Wood receives the response, or if the City fails to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, he may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1172 Page 3 May 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Frank Wood