Liz Neisloss v. Everett, City of - Solicitor's Office (SPR 20251897)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 16, 2025 SPR25/1897 Colleen Mejia, Esq. City Solicitor City of Everett 484 Broadway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Attorney Mejia: I have received the petition of Liz Neisloss, of GBH News, appealing the response of the City of Everett (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 12, 2025, Ms. Neisloss requested, “...a copy of the following documents [or documents containing the following information] be provided to me: emails and texts between Mayor... and any members of the Kraft Group from 2020 to the present related to the subject of the building of a stadium in Everett.” The City responded on June 26, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Neisloss petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1897, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided supplemental responses on July 8, 2025, which Ms. Neisloss appealed on July 8, 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 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

Colleen Mejia, Esq. SPR25/1897 Page 2 July 16, 2025 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 26th and July 8th Responses In its June 26, 2025 response, the City stated, “[w]e have completed the work in reference to your request as referenced above. The response is given below. . . Attachments[.] This response may or may not contain separate Response Documents to include specific response and data. In case such separate response documents exist, they are represented by attachments to this response email. Therefore, please look for any attachments if they exist. Between Request Response and attachments, we believe you are receiving a comprehensive response to your request.” In the City’s first July 8, 2025 response, the City advised that, “[t]here are a total of 85 emails in the response.” In the City’s second July 8th response, the Cites states, “[t]he redactions are explained in the exemption. The time frame certainly reflects your request.” Current appeal In her July 1, 2025 appeal, Ms. Neisloss asserts, . . . I believe the search was inadequate: I did not receive any texts, and no emails related to the requested subject other than Zoom meeting invites and almost completely redacted documents. I was not provided records going back to 2020 and not provided a specific explanation for this omission. I believe exemptions and sweeping redaction are not justified here: Everett’s negotiations over a soccer stadium predate 2023. The agreement related to the soccer stadium was signed in November 2023, and a law – the economic development bill was passed in Nov. 2024 and signed into law that same month. A request that extends back to 2020 merits public disclosure: the deliberative process leading up to that outcome has been completed should not be exempt from public disclosure. In her July 8, 2025 appeal, Ms. Neisloss states, “[i]t appears there are 86 – One email outside the folder with the 85. Nearly all of the emails are about the scheduling of Zoom meetings. And the handful that aren’t are completely redacted. And the time frame doesn’t reflect my request. My request for appeal still stands.” Based on Ms. Neisloss’ claims, in conjunction with the City’s responses, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to her request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or

Colleen Mejia, Esq. SPR25/1897 Page 3 July 16, 2025 control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). However, 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Neisloss with a response to the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Neisloss may 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: Liz Neisloss