Christopher Patzke v. Salem, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20251185)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 8, 2025 SPR25/1185 James Wellock, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Legal Department City of Salem 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Attorney Wellock: I have received the petition of Christopher Patzke 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 November 20, 2024, Mr. Patzke requested “[a]ll minutes and emails pertaining to the ‘joint monthly calls’ with the … ‘Massachusett Tribe at Ponkapoag’.” Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/0120 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 15, 2025), SPR25/0189 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 31, 2025), and SPR25/0746 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 28, 2025). In my March 28th determination, I found that the City intended to provide a further response to Mr. Patzke, and ordered it to do so within ten business days. The City responded on April 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Patzke petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1185, 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). 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 Wellock, Esq. SPR25/1185 Page 2 May 8, 2025 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. 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 stated: Your records request is not reasonably described. The broad, categorical language you use, “I am requesting ALL public records related to those meetings,” “ALL records related to…,” and “any emails … referencing the meetings” does not reasonably describe the specific public records sought and does not meet the statutory minimum standard for a public records request. See Chawla, at 2. I note that the City has made several productions of significant volumes of public records over these past several months in response to this request. Several Salem employees have made substantial efforts to work with you to identify specific records or to clarify and narrow the scope of your request, in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii), which encourages agencies to assist requesters in modifying requests to make production feasible. However, your repeated refusal to better-define, clarify, or narrow the scope, despite numerous communications over several months, has hindered these efforts. Current Appeal In his April 30, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Patzke characterized his request as properly limited in scope, and alleged that the City had misrepresented the existence of responsive records. Reasonable Description of 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).

James Wellock, Esq. SPR25/1185 Page 3 May 8, 2025 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. l 784CV02087, 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 judgments 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). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “All minutes and emails pertaining to …” and “ALL records related to …” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Patzke may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Patzke has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Mr. Patzke 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 Mr. Patzke 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: Christopher Patzke