Justin Nigrelli v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253285)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 24, 2025 SPR25/3285 Eileen O’Connor Bernal Lawrence City Clerk City Clerk’s Office 200 Common Street, Room 107 Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Ms. O’Connor Bernal: I have received the petition of Justin Nigrelli, of the Lawrence Firefighters IAFF Local 146, appealing the response of the City of Lawrence (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 28, 2025, Mr. Nigrelli sought the following related to “city contract #7345 ‘Lawrence General Hospital – Ambulance Services’”: [1] Number of BLS ambulances in services at 0700 hours, 1500 hours, and 2300 hours every day from 1/1/2021 to 4/28/25[;] [2] Number of ALS (double paramedic) ambulances in service at 0700 hours, 1500 hours, and 2300 hours every day from 1/1/21 to 4/28/25[;] [3] Monthly number of 911 BLS calls for service in Lawrence for each month in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025[;] [4] Monthly number of 911 ALS calls for service in Lawrence for each month in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025[;] [5] The number of 911 calls in Lawrence each month from January 2021 to May 2025 that required mutual aid ambulances from any of the following fire departments: Methuen, North Andover, Andover, Salem NH, Middleton, North Reading[;] [6] The number of 911 calls in Lawrence each month from January 2021 to May 2025 that were responded to by any of the following ambulance companies: [nine identified companies], or any other private ambulance service … 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

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/3285 Page 2 November 24, 2025 [7] Every date in which the contractor was not able to fulfill the staffing requirements of 3 BLS and 2 ALS ambulances at any period of time in such a 24 hour day[;] [8] As per section 8, each “quarterly report on response times, unit availability, missed calls, back-up services, and mutual aid use,” from January 1, 2021 to May 1, 2025[;] [9] As per section 15, any notes or reports from the quarterly meetings between the Fire Chief (or designee) and Director, Pre-Hospital EMS (or designee). Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1900 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 9, 2025) and SPR25/2492 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 5, 2025). In my September 5th determination, I found that the City did not meet its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) and ordered the City to respond to the request within ten (10) business days. The City responded on October 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Nigrelli petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3285, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to this office and Mr. Nigrelli on November 18, 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.

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/3285 Page 3 November 24, 2025 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Nigrelli argues the following: When the City eventually contacted its ambulance service contractor, Lawrence General Hospital, it merely forwarded the contractor’s statement that, as a private entity, it is not subject to public records law. The City accepted this assertion without any legal scrutiny or follow-up. As the custodian of the requested records, the City has an obligation not only to request the records, but to ensure their production. Simply circulating the contractor’s refusal is not compliance. . . . Emergency 911 ambulance services are a core public function. Lawrence General Hospital, in performing those services for the City, therefore maintains records that fall under the Public Records Law. The City is responsible for securing and producing those records. The October 27th and November 18th Responses In its October 27, 2025 response, the City attaches an email from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, and explains the following: The City has requested the records from Lawrence General Hospital a third party vendor. As previously stated the City of Lawrence is not in possession of the records requested by Mr. Nigrelli, and does not receive them in the normal course of business. As a result of your letter. I have asked the Hospital to provide us with the records, if in fact they exist. Attached hereto is the response from Hospital. According to their Legal Counsel they are not going to provide us with the documents and do not believe they are subject to a FOIA request. In its November 18, 2025 response, the City further argues the following: The City has forwarded the request to the third party holder of the records, Third- Party Lawrence General Hospital’s response is that is not subject to FOIA and will not produce the documents. The City is not seeking to withhold the documents under any exemption, the City is not in possession of these documents. The entity that possess such documents (if they exist) is a third party private entity refusing to provide the documents, not only to the requestor, but also to the public entity the City of Lawrence. I can find no precedent to the position that the City should force the third party Lawrence General Hospital to produce the records by litigation. Nowhere can I see that City must use municipal assets, time and efforts to bring a legal action against an independent vendor to produce records.

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/3285 Page 4 November 24, 2025 The argument is made that a duty arises under the principals of Fifty-One Hispanic Residents of Chelsea v. School Committee of Chelsea 421 Mass 598. The fact pattern of that case differs from that involved here. In that case the City had an obligation to provide education for its residents. The obligation was assigned to a third party. The school department remained a department of the City. Its employees remained employees of the City who continued on City Pension system and received municipal medical insurance. Here the ambulance service is not a department of the City. Employees of the ambulance service are not employees of the City. They do not receive pension or medical insurance under the City plan. The City has no rights to hire, fire or schedule the workers of the hospital. Each City and town must designate an ambulance service to provide emergency medical services to residents. The service can be publicly or privately run. While the state requires local jurisdictions to have a designated service, it does not require the municipality itself to be the provider, and the state does not require funding for these services. This is not true for education. The petitioner further argues that under the contract between the City and Lawrence General Hospital the following term is included. “At any time during normal business hours, and as often as the City may deem necessary, there shall be made available to audit, examine and make excerpts or transcripts of, all records, contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records, or personnel conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this contract.” This paragraph is entitled audit and inspection, allowing the City to go to the offices of the Lawrence General hospital and inspect any particular item. This is a financial requirement, allowing the City to conduct a financial audit of the Hospital. Agency Relationship; Possession, Custody, or Control of Records The City is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Additionally, public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). The City is further advised that where a public entity contracts with a third party to fulfill its public duties, and the public entity exercises control over that third party, an agency relationship is created. See Fifty-one Hispanic Residents of Chelsea v. Sch. Comm. of Chelsea,

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/3285 Page 5 November 24, 2025 421 Mass. 598, 607 (1996) (while subject to control of a public entity as a principal for purposes of performing public duties, private university is a public agent). Wherever a record custodian keeps original public records in a location other than the government building, the custodian has a duty to make the public records available in a location convenient to the general public for inspection and copying. In this case, where the Lawrence General Hospital has acted as an agent on behalf of the City, I find that the City has not met its burden to demonstrate that the records for the City’s agents were searched. Consequently, the City has not met its burden under G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii) to provide records that are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the The City is further advised that, where the responsive records were created by a third party to fulfill the City’s public duties, the City has a statutory duty to demand delivery of its public records that are outside of its possession. “If the custodian does not have custody of public records, the custodian shall demand delivery from any person unlawfully having possession of the records, and the records shall immediately be delivered by such person to the custodian.” G. L. c. 66, § 17. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Nigrelli with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Nigrelli may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Justin Nigrelli