Frank Wood v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20251525)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 12, 2025 SPR25/1525 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 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 May 14, 2025, Mr. Wood requested the following: [1] . . . any legal bills for services rendered to the school department in regards to the resignation/termination and/or non disclosure or severance agreement between the school department and [an identified individual], date range 6/1/2024 - 5/14/2025[;] [2] . . . all emails between [an identified individual] and anyone between 11/1/2024 and 2/1/2025 which mention the word “pope.” The City responded on May 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Wood petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1525, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided additional information concerning this appeal in an email to this office on June 3, 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). 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 SPR25/1525 Page 2 June 12, 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. 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 May 29th Response In its May 29, 2025 response, the City advised, “[w]e have completed the work in reference to your request . . .” and provided records responsive to Item 2 of the request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, regarding Item 1 of the request, Mr. Wood states, “[t]he City produced nothing for [Item] 1 of the request, even though legal invoices plainly exist.” Additionally, Mr. Wood requests that this office, “[d]irect the City to . . . produce any additional e‑mails responsive to [Item] 2 that were not included in . . . [its March 29, 2025 response].” Records in Existence The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Additionally, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office on June 3, 2025, a representative of the City stated, “[a]ll records responsive to this request were provided.” Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Wood’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Wood 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).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/1525 Page 3 June 12, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Frank Wood