Evan Moses v. Gloucester, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20252315)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 21, 2025 SPR25/2315 Grace E. Poirier City Clerk/ Principal Records Access Officer City of Gloucester 9 Dale Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Dear Ms. Poirier: I have received the petition of Evan S. Moses appealing the response of the City of Gloucester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 25, 2025, Mr. Moses requested the following: [1] Communications from Republic Services or Teamsters Local 25 [a] Any and all emails, letters, text messages, notices, or other communications sent to or received from Republic Services or Teamsters Local 25[;] [b] Any verbal or written notice of potential labor action, work stoppage, or delay in service delivery[;] [c] Documents may originate from or be addressed to any city employee, department, elected official, or representative[;] [2] Internal City Communications [a] Internal emails, memos, notes, meeting minutes, or written communications discussing: Anticipated labor issues or service gaps[,] . . . [a]wareness of or preparation for a potential strike or slowdown[;] [b] Handwritten notes, meeting agendas, or internal alerts/notices circulated in anticipation of operational issues related to Republic Services[;] [3] Phone Call Logs [a] Incoming and outgoing call logs (landline and mobile) for any city- issued devices or extensions that may show communication with: Republic Services personnel[,] . . . Teamsters Local 25 representatives[,] . . . [o]r inter-departmental communications related to this topic[;] [b] Where available, include timestamps, phone numbers, employee/department associations, and call duration[;] 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

Grace E. Poirier SPR25/2315 Page 2 August 21, 2025 [4] City Council Communications and Records [a] Any correspondence, memos, internal messages, or public records related to City Council awareness or involvement regarding: Anticipated or discussed service disruptions[,] . . . [c]ommunications between council members and any city department regarding Republic Services or the Teamsters[,] . . . [a]ny mention or discussion of work stoppage in formal or informal meetings or correspondence[;] [5] Evidence of Prior Knowledge of Work Stoppage or Service Gap [a] Any indication that the City was aware or made aware of a pending work stoppage, slowdown, or strike prior to July 1, 2025, from any source. This includes documentation or communication referring to: Risk mitigation[,] . . . [s]taffing or DPW preparation[,] . . . [s]ervice adjustment planning before the strike was public. The City responded on August 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Moses petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2315, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on August 12, 2025, the City provided a supplemental response. 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. Att’y 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 8th and August 12th Responses In its August 8, 2025 response, the City provided records responsive to Items 1, 2, and 4 of Mr. Moses’ request, and noted, “[t]he documents and emails responsive to your request will be released through Nextrequest.” The City further denied Items 3 and 5 and stated the following:

Grace E. Poirier SPR25/2315 Page 3 August 21, 2025 Regarding the request in item 3 pertaining to call logs showing specific communications, this request is denied as it does not reasonably describe the specific records sought, as required under G.L. c. 66 § 10. Your request for call logs based on a topic of conversation was insufficient to allow a knowledgeable staff member to identify and locate responsive records without undue burden. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. L. Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, (2024). Call logs do not reflect call content and cannot be searched by subject matter. Pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii), we suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of your request—such as providing phone numbers for a desired party. Regarding your request in Item 5 for “any indication that the City was aware or made aware of a pending work stoppage,” this request is denied as it does not reasonably describe the specific records sought, as required under G.L. c. 66, § 10. Additionally, please be advised that the Public Records Law applies only to documents. The law does not require a government entity to answer specific questions or to create records in response to a public records request. In its August 12, 2025 response to Mr. Moses and this office, a representative of the City further stated as follows: In response to Mr. Moses[’] request, the City conducted an exhaustive and diligent search of its records. The City responded on August 8, 2025 by making the records in its control and possession available in an electronic format to Mr. Moses. The City of Gloucester does not maintain call logs indicating the subject matter of calls. Additionally, a request for “any evidence of prior knowledge of the work stoppage” is not a request for an identifiable public record that the City can produce. As was stated in the response to the initial request, the request does not identify a record but requests evidence of certain knowledge. . . . The City properly requested that Mr. Moses clarify his request. Thus, the City respectfully requests that this appeal be denied. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Moses contends, “I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Records . . . [o]rder the City to conduct a complete search of all records responsive to [the request]” and “[r]equire that all responsive records not already provided be disclosed without delay and without unlawful redaction.” Upon review of the appeal, it appears Mr. Moses is not objecting to the City’s response to Items 1, 2, and 4 of his July 25, 2025 request. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that Mr. Moses narrowed Items 3 and 5 of his request in an email to this office and the Town dated August 12, 2025. Regarding Item 3, Mr. Moses narrowed his request to, “call detail records (CDRs) showing date, time, duration, originating/receiving number, and extension for city-issued lines used by the Mayor, DPW Director, City Clerk/RAO, City Legal main line, DPW main line, and City Hall main, between

Grace E. Poirier SPR25/2315 Page 4 August 21, 2025 June 1–30, 2025.” Mr. Moses further stated, “[t]hese may be limited to calls to/from known Republic Services and Teamsters Local 25 numbers.” Mr. Moses additionally narrowed Item 5 of his request and stated the following: I now specifically request, for June 1–30, 2025, the following record types that evidence pre–July 1 awareness or planning for a potential work stoppage: - Emails – Text messages - Letters/notices - Meeting agendas or minutes - Calendar entries – Internal memos/briefing notes – Alerts[.] This narrowed scope applies when such records reference “Republic Services,” “Teamsters Local 25,” “strike,” “work stoppage,” “slowdown,” “contingency,” “Blue Crew,” or “service gap.” Where this appeal was opened as a result of the City’s August 7, 2025 response to Mr. Moses’s July 25, 2025 request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Moses with a response to his narrowed August 12th request in accordance with the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Moses may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Evan S. Moses