Tom Benoit v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20252043)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 29, 2025 SPR25/2043 Paul J. Iversen Records Access Officer Mayor’s Office City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Tom Benoit, of MetroWest Daily News, 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 June 10, 2025, Mr. Benoit requested, “[c]omplaints filed against [an identified] Officer from date of hire to present [and] all gender discrimination complaints filed from 2021 to present.” The City responded on June 24, 2025. Subsequently, on July 7, 2025, Mr. Benoit modified his request and stated, “[r]egarding the complaints about [an identified Officer], I will change that from ‘date of hire’ to January 1, 2018. For now, I will withdraw the second part of my request (all gender discrimination complaints).” The City responded on July 7, 2025 and July 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Benoit petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2043, 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 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 SPR25/2043 Page 2 July 29, 2025 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Benoit asserts, “[a]s of July 15, my request’s response due date is now July 25. I was not informed of this change.” The City’s June 24th, July 7th, and July 8th Responses In its June 24, 2025 response, the City stated, “[r]esponding to this request within 10 business days places an undue burden on the responsibilities of the City. As a result, the City is extending the due date for this request by 15 business days.” In its July 7, 2025 response, the City stated the following: [y]our request has been put on hold due to following reason: Your request is rather broad. I have a few questions to help narrow the search: [1] Regarding: “Complaints filed against [an identified] Officer ... from date of hire to present.” Do you mean [the identified Officer’s] original date-of-hire with the City/Town of Framingham? or do you mean his date-of-hire as COO? [2] Regarding “All gender discrimination complaints filed from 2021 to present.” Do you mean City-wide, including the School Department? Could you specify complaints from anyone in particular? or against anyone in particular? In its July 8, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]hank you for your clarification Tom. This is helpful.” Based on the City’s July 8th response, it is unclear if the City possesses records responsive to the request. 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). 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 responsive records exist. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay).

Paul J. Iversen SPR25/2043 Page 3 July 29, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Benoit with a response, 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 preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Benoit may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tom Benoit