Framingham Unfiltered v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20251265)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 16, 2025 SPR25/1265 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 Framingham Unfiltered (requestor) 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 22, 2025, the requestor sought: [1] …a copy of the complete building permit application for Permit #BLD250981 at …Miller Ave, including all attached documents, plans, and related materials. [2] …all correspondence between your office and the applicant ([identified individuals] or their representatives) between March 15, 2025, and the date of this request. The City responded on April 23, 2025 and May 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1265, 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.

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1265 Page 2 May 16, 2025 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 23rd and May 6th Responses In its April 23, 2025 response, a City official stated, “[p]lease make your public records request through the City’s public records request portal.” After the requestor stated, “[t]he public records law states that I can make my request through any means, in writing, or verbally, through a portal or submitted to any town representative,” it appears the request was nevertheless entered into the City’s portal. In its May 6, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he 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 its appeal petition, the requestor states: Although our request was submitted directly to the Building Commissioner… it was ultimately rerouted to the city’s public portal and backdated. On May 6, 2025—the tenth business day and statutory deadline—the City responded not with records, but with its now-predictable form letter, claiming that responding within the legal deadline would place "an undue burden on the responsibilities of the City," and unilaterally granted itself a 15-business-day extension… The language in the City’s boilerplate extensions fails to meet the statutory requirement to “identify any specific reasons” why compliance within 10 days would impose an undue burden (see 950 CMR 32.06(2)(i))… The City is advised that pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.06, “requests for public records may be made orally in person to a records access officer or custodian or may be written. . . . [W]ritten requests may be delivered by a requester to the business address or designated website or email address of a records access officer or custodian: 1. by hand; 2. by mail; 3. by electronic mail; or 4. by facsimile, if custodian has facsimile access.” See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(a), (c).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1265 Page 3 May 16, 2025 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 28, 2025, to provide a response to the 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 the requestor in its appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once the requestor receives the response, or if the City fails to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, the requestor may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Framingham Unfiltered