Jonathan Medeiros v. Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252542)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 10, 2025 SPR25/2542 Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel City of Fall River 1 Government Center Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Attorney Fredette: I have received the petition of Jonathan Medeiros, of IAFF Local 1314 Fall River Fire Fighters, appealing the response of the City of Fall River (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). From May 27, 2025, through June 12, 2025, Mr. Medeiros made the following requests: Request I: R000260-052725, SPR25/1809 On May 27, 2025, Mr. Medeiros requested: [1] [R]ecords that document when these [identified] vehicles were out of service on a non-permanent basis[;] [2] Records showing what additional vehicles were in service during those same [specified] time periods, including Medic 7 through Medic 12 and any vehicles operating under the Mobile Integrated Health (MIH) division of FREMS[;] [3] Documentation indicating if these [identified] vehicles responded to any 911 calls while the primary units were shut down[;] [4] Records showing how many times the MIH Coordinator was contacted for mutual aid to cover 911 calls during these periods and how many times these requests were denied due to previously scheduled appointments[.] For the time period of January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, and January 1, 2025, through May 27, 2025, Mr. Medeiros sought the following records: 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

Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. SPR25/2542 Page 2 September 10, 2025 [1] Staffing Records: Any documentation (including reports, rosters, or software data such as Aladtec or equivalent) showing daily staffing of Medic 1-6, Squad 11, Medic 7-12, and MIH units[;] [2] Correspondence: Any and all emails or communications from the EMS Chief, Deputy EMS Chief, or Operations staff referencing the status, shutdown, or reassignment of any of the above-mentioned vehicle[;] [3] Service Records: Any documentation indicating response activity (or lack thereof) for Medic 7-12 or MIH-assigned vehicles during times when front-line units were shut down[;] [4] MIH Coordinator Activity: Records reflecting requests for MIH Coordinator mutual aid assistance, outcomes of those requests (granted or denied), and the reason for denial if due to existing appointments[;] [5] Log Books and Legal Records: Copies of log books or other legally maintained documentation tracking in-service/out-of-service status of EMS vehicles, as well as any logs documenting vehicle assignments during 911 calls[;] [6] Internal Reports or Memos: Any directives, memos, or reports pertaining to the staffing or operational availability of the units mentioned above. In an email to the City on June 23, 2025, Mr. Medeiros stated, “…we’re happy to narrow the scope of the request to a one-year window: from May 28, 2024, through May 27, 2025[.]” Request II: R000293-061225, SPR25/1928 On June 12, 2025, Mr. Medeiros also sought the following: [1] All Requests for Proposals (RFPs) or Invitations for Bids (IFBs) issued by Fall River EMS[;] [2] Documentation of all purchases over $10,000, including: [q]uote logs or written solicitations[;] [b]ids/proposals received[;] [c]ontracts awarded[;] [p]rice comparisons[;] [3] For purchases over $50,000: [c]opy of sealed bids and public advertisements (with date/time stamps)[;] [j]ustification for vendor selection[;] [n]otice of award[;] [4] All purchases under $10,000, including: [p]urchase orders or requisitions[;] [i]nvoices and receipts[;] [v]endor name and description of goods/services[;] [i]nternal approvals or justification documentation[;] [5] Emergency procurement documentation under M.G.L. c. 30B §8: Statements of emergency[;] Purchase orders, invoices, approvals[;] Notification filings to the Secretary of State and COMMBUYS[;] [6] All sole-source procurement justifications, including: Internal memos or

Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. SPR25/2542 Page 3 September 10, 2025 waiver forms[;] Vendor exclusivity claims[;] [7] Annual enterprise fund budgets and expenditure reports (FY22-FY25)[;] [8] All internal or external audits or reviews of the EMS enterprise fund, especially those addressing procurement or internal controls[;] [9] Communications (email or memo) between EMS leadership and the Purchasing Department or Mayor’s Office regarding: [p]urchases of any amount[;] [c]ircumventing procurement rules[;] [a]voiding public bid processes[;] [10] List of all vendors or contractors paid by Fall River EMS since Jan 1, 2022, including: Vendor name and address[;] Description of service/supplies[;] [11] All signed contracts or purchase agreements with vendors above $1,000, including for under-threshold purchases[;] [12] Any non-competitive contracts or memoranda of understanding (MOUs)[;] [13] Names and job titles of all EMS personnel involved in procurement, purchasing, or enterprise fund management[;] [14] Copies of EMS’s internal procurement policies (if any exist apart from citywide policy)[;] [15] Any Mass Certified Public Purchasing Official (MCPPO) certifications held by EMS supervisors or purchasing agents[;] [16] Any emails or memos between EMS leadership, city officials, or vendors that: [d]iscuss avoiding public bidding[;] [s]uggest ‘splitting’ purchases to stay under thresholds[;] [i]nclude phrases such as: “get around 30B,” “not enough time to bid,” “don’t go through Purchasing,” or “emergency but not documented”[.] Request III: R000294-061225, SPR25/1927 On June 12, 2025, Mr. Medeiros sought the following: [1] Revenue reports showing income related to COVID-19 testing, vaccination, and emergency services[;] [2] All grant funding received (e.g., CARES Act, ARPA, FEMA) by Fall River EMS and documentation regarding how funds were used[;] [3] All contracts or purchase agreements associated with COVID-19 testing, vaccine administration, or pop-up clinics[;] [4] All COVID-related purchases under $10,000, including: Purchase orders[;] Invoices[;] Vendor names[;] Descriptions of goods/services[;] [5] Emergency procurements related to COVID response efforts, including: Justification memos[;] Waivers or deviation approvals[;] Internal communications regarding urgency[;] [6] Any correspondence, memos, or emails involving EMS leadership and the Purchasing Department, Mayor’s Office, or vendors regarding COVID-19 operations or funding[;] [7] All audits, reviews, or findings involving EMS’s use of COVID-related funds or revenue[;] [8] Any documentation or correspondence suggesting misuse, misallocation, or irregular handling of COVID-related revenues or expenditures.

Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. SPR25/2542 Page 4 September 10, 2025 Previous Appeals and Petitions These requests were the subject of previous appeals and petitions from the City. See SPR25/1809 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 30, 2025); SPR25/1927, SPR25/1928 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 15, 2025) and SPR25/2217 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 4, 2025). In my August 4th determination, I found that where the City had not demonstrated that it submitted a timely petition, a waiver of statutory limits on fees could not be granted. Subsequently, I understand the City provided a revised fee estimate, Mr. Medeiros paid a portion of the fees, and the City provided a portion of the responsive records. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Medeiros petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2542, 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. Fee Estimates - Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for,

Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. SPR25/2542 Page 5 September 10, 2025 compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Medeiros argues the following: On August 1, 2025, we reiterated our willingness to narrow the scope of the requests and to work collaboratively with the City to reduce burden. On August 5, 2025, we followed up again with specific proposals to limit scope, reduce time windows, and accept summary-level documents. As of today, the City has not substantively responded to those offers, nor has it provided any additional rolling production of records as required. In correspondence with the City, included with his petition, Mr. Medeiros states the following: As we’ve said from the beginning, we’re willing to work with the City to make these requests more manageable. To that end, we are open to narrowing the scope of our FOIA requests (1, 2 and 3) in ways that significantly reduce the time and resources required. We would appreciate the City’s input on the following: Which parts of the requests are most time-consuming or difficult to compile? Are there simpler formats or existing summary reports that could meet the request in whole or in part? Are there centrally stored or precompiled documents that could expedite delivery? We are open to: Limiting procurement records to the top five vendors by annual spending Reducing the time window for correspondence searches Focusing on final versions only (omitting drafts or duplications) Accepting summary-level financial data instead of detailed line-item documentation Mr. Medeiros also indicates that he is “willing to explore further ways to reduce the volume” of responsive emails.

Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. SPR25/2542 Page 6 September 10, 2025 The City’s Responses In its July 9, and July 23 responses, the City provided numerous responsive records. In its August 5, 2025 response, the City provided a revised fee estimate of $16,357.70, and confirmed that it was assessing fees at a rate of $25 per hour. Following further correspondence with Mr. Medeiros and discussions of narrowing the requests, in its August 13, 2025 response, the City provided charts showing revised fee estimates for each portion of the requests, and indicated a revised total fee estimate of $13,142.40. The City’s revised fee estimates indicate a reduction from a total of 9,372 to a total of 5,161 responsive emails, along with tens of thousands of pages of other responsive records. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. Medeiros and the City to communicate directly in order to

Kenneth E. Fredette, Esq. SPR25/2542 Page 7 September 10, 2025 facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Medeiros may consider further narrowing the scope of his request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any further potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Medeiros and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Medeiros may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Medeiros