Khalil Wali v. Fitchburg, City of (SPR 20252879)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 15, 2025 SPR25/2879 Joanna Bilotta-Simeone City Clerk City of Fitchburg 718 Main Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Dear Ms. Bilotta-Simeone: I have received the petition of Khalil Wali appealing the response of the City of Fitchburg (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 26, 2025, Mr. Wali requested “copies of the oaths of office and any related filings or certifications for [two identified] Fitchburg Police Department [officers][.]” The City responded on September 26, 2025 and September 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Wali petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2879, 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. 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

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/2879 Page 2 October 15, 2025 The City’s September 26th and September 29th Responses In its September 26, 2025 response, the City confirmed receipt of Mr. Wali’s request and indicated that “[t]he request is being forwarded to the City Clerk’s Department(s) that would be able to provide the requested records.” In its September 29, 2025 response, the City provided five pages of responsive documents as email attachments. Upon review, it is my understanding that each document is responsive to the appointment or promotion of the officers identified in Mr. Wali’s request. Additionally, each document notes in light of the respective officer’s appointment or promotion, the officer “made oath that he would faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties incumbent upon him as [an officer] . . . for the City of Fitchburg.” Subsequently, in further correspondence dated September 29, 2025, a City representative stated, “[t]hese are the only certificate of Oath that I have for [the two identified officers]. . . .” Current Appeal In his October 1, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Wali states, “[t]he City’s response consisted only of appointment paperwork, promotional certificates, and internal letters. These are not the actual sworn oaths of office.” He further advises, “[o]n September 29, 2025, I submitted a . . . clarification request, making it explicit that I was seeking the full text of the oath and the signed record. To date, I have not received either the responsive records or written confirmation that no such records exist.” Upon further review of the case file, it is unclear if a copy of Mr. Wali’s September 29, 2025 request was provided to this office. Specifically, it is unclear if a copy of Mr. Wali’s clarified September 29th request, in which he claims he “[made] it explicit that I was seeking the full text of the oath and the signed record[,]” were provided with his appeal petition. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(g) (requestors shall provide to the Supervisor complete copies of all correspondence associated with the petition). Accordingly, I am unable to opine on this appeal at this time. If unresolved issues remain, Mr. Wali may file an appeal with this office with the necessary documents. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/2879 Page 3 October 15, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Khalil Wali