Concerned Parents v. Lowell, City of - Law Department (SPR 20252269)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 13, 2025 SPR25/2269 John Pyers Records Access Officer City of Lowell, Law Department 375 Merrimack Street, Third Floor Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Mr. Pyers: I have received the petition of Concerned Parents (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Lowell (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 24, 2025, the requestor sought the following: A copy of your municipality written responses for SPR25/1862 to the requester, as well as a portion of the responsive public records for this requester’s request… please provide only the following ARPA grantees responsive record reports on year to date spending, open purchase orders and paid invoices, we believe the requester may have requested: [17] Summer St. Supportive Housing Community Teamwork Inc. [18] Lowell Community Health Center Family Medicine Residency Program and Health Justice Learning Institute [19] Lowell Housing Authority Building Portfolio Update and Improvements [20] Lotus House Supportive Housing Program for Women Community Teamwork Inc. [21] Community Teamwork Inc. Residential Energy Efficiency Programming [22] Ad-Hoc Grant Award - Folk Festival Recycling Program Lowell Folk Festival Foundation, Equitable Arts Education Refuge Lowell, Project Home Base Lowell Litter Krewe, Financial Wellness for Women Women’s Money Matters, Circle Keeper Initiative Thrive Communities/ CTI, COVID-19 Support Expenses Life Connection, Bi-Lingual Recovery Coach The Bridge Club/Troubled Waters 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

John Pyers SPR25/2269 Page 2 August 12, 2025 [23] ARPA Program Management and Federal Compliance - ARPA Finance Team Wages & Benefits, Legal and Administrative Cost After 12/31/2026, ARPA Dashboard Software Project and Grant Management Software Project [24] Revenue Replacement Timeline: 2021-2025… Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2199 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 4, 2025). The City initially responded to this request on July 25, 2025. While SPR25/2199 was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on July 31, 2025. In my August 4th determination, I closed SPR25/2199 in light of the requestor withdrawing the appeal. Unsatisfied with the City’s July 31st response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2269, 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 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 July 31st Response In its initial response to the request on July 25, 2025, the City provided a copy of its written response to [an identified individual] and a link to responsive records. The City also stated: The easiest way for you to obtain the records responsive to your request is through the website here at the ARPA Dashboard… It has copies of POs as well

John Pyers SPR25/2269 Page 3 August 12, 2025 as invoices and gives a breakdown of spending readily available. This is the easiest solution as running the reports would take substantial time for the reasons laid out in the attached response to [an identified individual]. If you are unsatisfied with the City's response please feel free to reach out because there will have to be a fee associated with the response. The requestor subsequently argued, “[the City] gave us someone else’s good faith estimate today that isn’t reflective of our very small scope, gave us information to appeal their response, failed to produce records and gave us a link that isn’t to records we requested… Lowell also cannot inflate fees in order to excessively charge us for the wider scope [an identified individual] requested for 25/1862.” In its supplemental response on July 31, 2025, the City provided additional copies of responsive records and asked this office to deny the appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous and was filed in bad faith. The City argued the following: This appeal was done in bad faith… The website linked is the ARPA dashboard for the City of Lowell which gives links to all ARPA projects…This is the information requested by Concerned Parents and is therefore responsive… Furthermore, the City is allowed under public records law to direct requestors to websites where the information is readily available to the public…The fee estimate in question was given as a document responsive to Concerned Parents’ request. The City has not charged Concerned Parents for the immediate response to the request... This appeal of the fee request for Concerned Parents is a thinly veiled attempt to appeal a third party’s fee estimate… The fact that Concerned Parents attempts to appeal a third party’s fee agreement when they have no standing to [do] so is frivolous and therefore this appeal should be denied. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor stated, “Lowell did in fact give us someone else’s good faith estimate… Their responses and fee estimate given to us is within our jurisdiction to appeal… This supplemental response today the city produced, are merely records from a link that it knew isn’t to records we requested, which makes them non responsive…. Lowell failed to produce the records we requested… or give any response for why they are withholding public records.” In a telephone conversation between the City and this office on August 1, 2025, the City confirmed that all records responsive to the numbered portions of the request are publicly available via the provided website link. The City also confirmed that the fee estimate referred to by the requestor was provided in response to the request for the City’s written responses for SPR25/1862, and not a fee estimate for the subject request in the current appeal. The City further clarified that the need for a “fee associated with the response,” as referenced in the City’s July 25th response, would only be applicable if the requestor sought extraction and compilation of the publicly available information on the website.

John Pyers SPR25/2269 Page 4 August 12, 2025 Lack of Good Faith 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: The Supervisor of Records may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: the request is designed or intended to harass [or] intimidate…. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(2). Although the City states that the requestor’s appeal is frivolous and was filed in bad faith, I find that based on the City’s supplemental response, the City has not sufficiently demonstrated that the request was designed or intended to harass or intimidate. Consequently, I decline to deny this appeal. No Duty to Create Records; Records Available on a Public Website 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). It is also permissible for the custodian of records to provide access to records via a link to a website. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d) (“If the public record requested is available on a public website ... the records access officer may furnish the public record by providing reasonable assistance in locating the requested record on the public website.”); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.04 (5)(e) (“A records access officer shall ... to the extent feasible, furnish the public records by providing reasonable assistance in locating the records on an appropriately indexed and searchable public website”); 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (2)(a) (“A records access officer shall inform a requester of the availability of records online to avoid delays and fees associated with the provision of public records”). Unclear Appeal Based on the information provided in the City’s responses, and where the City has confirmed the fee estimate referred to in the appeal petition is responsive to the request for “written responses for SPR25/1862,” and not a fee estimate for the subject request, I find that the basis for this part of the requestor’s appeal is unclear. The requestor is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f).

John Pyers SPR25/2269 Page 5 August 12, 2025 Conclusion In this instance, the City has provided the requestor with reasonable assistance in locating the responsive records. Further, given that the City possesses no additional records responsive to the request, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If the requestor 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: Concerned Parents