Diane Greeley v. Newton, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20252298)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 21, 2025 SPR25/2298 Greta McConnell City Clerk City of Newton 1000 Commonwealth Avenue Newton, MA 02459 Dear Ms. McConnell: I have received the petition of Diane Greeley, appealing the response of the City of Newton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 29, 2025, Ms. Greeley requested: [1] [T]he quarterly reports submitted by Riverside Community Care to Newton’s Director of Social Services, as per the Grant Agreement for Mental Health Services between Riverside Community Care and the City of Newton for FY2023 and [2] The biannual reports submitted by Riverside Community Care to Newton’s Director of Social Services, as per the Grant Agreement for Mental Health Services between Riverside Community Care and the City of Newton for FY2024 and FY2025… The City responded on August 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Greeley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2298, 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). 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

Greta McConnell SPR25/2298 Page 2 August 21, 2025 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 August 6th response In its August 6, 2025 response, the City provided Ms. Greeley with the following: [1] Riverside Outpatient FY 24 Report Form.pdf; [2] City of Newton outpatient reports FY 25.pdf; [3] Riverside Outpatient FY 25 Report Form.pdf; and [4] Riverside Outpatient FY 24 Report Form Outpatient 1.pdf In its response, the City stated “[a]fter a diligent search and corresponding with Riverside[,] the attached are responsive and at this point in time you possess all the responsive records that could be found. Please note after a diligent search and correspondence with Riverside no Q3 or Q4 FY23 records are in the possession of either the City or Riverside.” Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Greeley states, “[t]he City of Newton has refused to release the Quarterly Reports submitted by Riverside Community Care to Newton’s Director of Social Services for FY2023 Quarter 3 and FY2023 Quarter 4…[i]n response to my Public Records Request with the City of Newton, a number of documents were released, however several of these documents were duplicates, simply labeled as different documents.” Subsequent to Ms. Greeley opening this appeal, the City provided additional information, stating, “our initial search revealed those reports could not be located in the City of Newton’s custody and control. Additionally, we asked Riverside to send us copies of those missing reports from their records to supplement to the requestor, and they too could not find any copy of the records for FY23.” Based on the City’s response, I find that the City must explain whether the requested records existed and were destroyed, or whether the records did not initially exist. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). If records were destroyed, I find that the City must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The City must clarify this matter.

Greta McConnell SPR25/2298 Page 3 August 21, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Greeley with a response to the request, 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. Ms. Greeley 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: Diane Greeley