Peter Blandino v. Quincy, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252893)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 9, 2025 SPR25/2893 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Peter Blandino, of The Patriot Ledger, appealing the nonresponse of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 10, 2025, Mr. Blandino requested the following records regarding two statues to be installed on the City’s public safety building: [1] RFQ produced by construction manager-at-risk for the subcontract governing the statues[;] [2] List of approved subcontractors compiled by construction manager-at-risk for the statues[;] [3] Bids from the approved subcontractors for the statues[;] [4] Award to subcontractor selected for statues[;] [5] Written explanation of the reason for the subcontract award produced by the construction manager-at risk[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2862 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 2, 2025). In my October 2nd determination, I found that the City had provided Mr. Blandino with a response on October 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Blandino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2893, was opened as a result. 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/2893 Page 2 October 9, 2025 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 October 1st Response In its October 1, 2025 response, the City stated, “…the subject of this FOIA request is being currently litigated in court. Thus, at this time, we are checking with legal counsel, as we feel there is an exemption under the freedom of information act which prohibits us from providing this information at this time.” Current Appeal In his October 1, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Blandino contended that the City’s response did not provide sufficient justification to withhold responsive records. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and confirmed that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Norfolk Superior Court. See Claire Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy (Docket No. 2582CV00576). Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor:

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/2893 Page 3 October 9, 2025 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the active litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Peter Blandino