Christina Indorato v. Revere, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20251741)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 27, 2025 SPR25/1741 Ashley E. Melnik City Clerk City of Revere 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Dear Ms. Melnik: I have received the petition of Christina Indorato appealing the response of the City of Revere (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 22, 2025, Ms. Indorato requested: [1] The current seniority roster for all bargaining‑unit positions within the Water & Sewer Department, showing employee names, titles, hire dates union/non‑union status, and FTE[;] [2] Any memorandum, email, or document dated 1 Jan 2025 – present that proposes, authorizes, or explains the elimination of the Principal Clerk position(s) in Water & Sewer[;] [3] Any job postings, offer letters, or start‑date confirmations for new positions created or filled in Water & Sewer or DPW Administration during the same period (e.g., Operations Manager, AMI Analyst, or similar roles)[;] [4] The draft or final FY 2026 Water & Sewer salary schedule (or equivalent staffing table) submitted to the City Council. The City responded on May 22, 2025, June 9, 2025, and June 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Indorato petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1741, was opened as a result. 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

Ashley E. Melnik SPR25/1741 Page 2 June 27, 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). 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 22nd, June 9th, and June 16th Responses On May 22, 2025, the City confirmed receipt of the request. After a follow-up inquiry from Ms. Indorato, a City official responded on June 9, 2025, “I will resend your request to the appropriate department. I have yet to receive a response.” In its June 16, 2025 response, the City provided responsive records via email attachment to Items 1 and 4 of the request. Regarding Item 2, the City stated, “[n]o documents found in the City’s possession, custody or control.” Regarding Item 3, the City stated, “[n]o documents found in the City’s possession, custody or control for the specified period.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Indorato argues against the City’s “partial and untimely response.” Ms. Indorato stated, “[t]he City claims ‘no documents found’ for Item 2… and Item 3... Such documents should exist in HR and Finance systems. The roster provided for Item 1 omits [FTE / laid-off names] and therefore is not fully responsive…” In a subsequent telephone conversation with this office on June 24, 2025, the City confirmed that it provided all records responsive to the request and stated that its Human Resources Department’s search found no additional records responsive to Ms. Indorato’s request.

Ashley E. Melnik SPR25/1741 Page 3 June 27, 2025 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, 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). Conclusion Given that the City has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to Ms. Indorato’s request, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Indorato 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 of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christina Indorato