Collin Dias v. Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20251535)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 13, 2025 SPR25/1535 Alison M. Bouchard Office of the City Clerk City of Fall River One Government Center, Room 227 Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Ms. Bouchard: I have received the petition of Colin Dias appealing the response of the City of Fall River (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 29, 2025, Mr. Dias requested “any investigative report made into the conduct of [a named individual], now former DCM Director.” The City responded on May 30, 2025, and assigned reference number R000272-052925 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Dias petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1535, 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 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

Alison M. Bouchard SPR25/1535 Page 2 June 13, 2025 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 30th Response In its May 30, 2025 response, the City provides a responsive record in redacted form. In his appeal petition, Mr. Dias argues the following: In this case, which is now closed, a superior court Judge ordered the release of this very report, stating “It is DECLARED that the records requested by the plaintiff are public records not exempt from disclosure, with the exception of any existing emails between municipal counsel and city employees made in confidence and for the purpose of rendering legal advice.” 2273CV00734 Gannett Co, Inc vs. Fall River, City of. Some of the redactions are among paragraphs where an [sic] municipal employee alleges fraud and misallocation of City funds. There were redactions among paragraphs pertaining to possible soil contamination at Morton Middle School. There was no reason, rationale, or explanation for the redactions given by the City for the redactions, which is required by the Public Records Law. I am also requesting an in camera inspection to review the report and order a release that is consistent with the Gannett ruling, which I believe is a nearly full release of the report. Burden of Specificity The City’s May 30th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the City’s response, it is unclear which exemption the City is citing in order to redact the responsive record. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The City must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Dias with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is

Alison M. Bouchard SPR25/1535 Page 3 June 13, 2025 preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Dias may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Collin Dias