Andrew Carleen v. Quincy, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253209)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 14, 2025 SPR25/3209 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy Office of the City Clerk 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Andrew Carleen appealing the response 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 October 2, 2025, Mr. Carleen requested, “[a]ll emails, text messages, and other written communication electronic or otherwise received or sent by Quincy city officials pertaining to the receipt or review of the signatures submitted by Citizens for Fair Wages to add a question to the November city ballot related to the Mayor’s salary increase.” Following correspondence with the City, Mr. Carleen modified his request on October 9, 2025, to request the following: …all communications, including but not limited to emails, memos, text messages, and correspondence between the Office of the Mayor (including [an identified individual] and staff), the Office of the City Clerk (including [an identified individual] and staff), and any other city officials involved in the review of the Citizens for Fair Raises ballot initiative, regarding the receipt, review, certification, or processing of petition signatures submitted by Citizens for Fair Raises or any ballot initiative committee seeking to place a question related to the mayor’s salary on the November 2025 municipal ballot. To assist with your search, please include communications that contain any of the following terms or phrases: “Board of Registrars,” “signatures,” “ballot,” “salary,” “petition,” “citizens 4 fair raises,” “receipt,” “review.” Please limit the search to communications sent or received between July 1, 2025, and September 30, 2025, unless responsive materials outside this range are found to be directly relevant. 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 SPR25/3209 Page 2 November 14, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2999 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 21, 2025). In my October 21st determination, I found that the City had not met is burden of specificity to withhold the responsive records. The City responded on October 27, 2025 and October 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Carleen petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3209, 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. The City’s October 27th and October 30th Responses In its October 27, 2025 response, the City stated, “[w]e have responded to Andrew Carleen on 10/10/25.” On October 30, 2025, an attorney for the City stated: I have reached out again to the IT department and received a response that for a request involving everyone in the mayor’s office, all city officials, and 9 city councilors would be 72 separate inquires not including searching for key words in separate emails. The number of hours and work involved, and the number of emails will still be in an excessive amount even just for the 3-month period between July 1, 2025 - September 30, 2025… As of now we cannot complete this Request as described. If you could please specify which City official, you would like records of that would be easier to accomplish.

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/3209 Page 3 November 14, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Carleen stated, “[t]he City’s response neither complies with the Massachusetts Public Records Law (G.L. c. 66, § 10) nor your office’s 10/21 order directing the city to issue a lawful, complete, and specific response…” Please be advised that 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. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). This office encourages Mr. Carleen and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Carleen may wish to narrow his request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Carleen and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Carleen may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/3209 Page 4 November 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Carleen