Richard K. Lodge v. Newburyport, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20251722)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 30, 2025 SPR25/1722 JT Chamberlain Records Access Officer City of Newburyport 60 Pleasant Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: I have received the petition of Richard K. Lodge appealing the response of the City of Newburyport (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 15, 2025, Mr. Lodge requested, “[t]he complete and final report of the Newburyport Library investigation conducted by [an identified individual], as set forth in the July 8, 2024 order by the Newburyport City Council.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1401 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 2, 2025). In my June 2nd determination, I directed the City to clarify whether it possessed additional records responsive to Mr. Lodge’s request. The City responded on June 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Lodge petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1722, 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

JT Chamberlain SPR25/1722 Page 2 June 30, 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 June 12th Response In its June 12, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, the Open Meeting Law as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and the attorney-client privilege to withhold the requested records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his June 16, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Lodge stated the following: I respectfully ask the Office of the Secretary of State to review the investigative report to determine if it contains truly sensitive personnel information that should be exempt from disclosure, and if so, order that such information be redacted and the full report be released, given the strong public interest for information about the professional conduct of Newburyport Public Library employees in the workplaces and the professional conduct of the current mayor, his former chief of staff and the current human resources director. Open Meeting Law In its June 12th response, the City stated: Under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A, section 21, documents used in or discussed during an executive session are also subject to the same privileges of confidentiality as that executive session meeting. The Report was reviewed and discussed by the City Council in executive sessions under Purpose 1 (M.G.L. c. 30A, section 21(a)(1)) on May 1 and May 12. At the conclusion of the May 12 meeting the City Council voted to release an executive summary of the Report to the individuals named in the report. Thus, the City Council voted for a narrow and specific waiver of the privilege of confidentiality, but did not approve any broader waiver of that privilege. The nature of the City’s response raises issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address this issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties

JT Chamberlain SPR25/1722 Page 3 June 30, 2025 to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session materials. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Richard K. Lodge