Nicholas J. Roman v. Fitchburg, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20253315)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 24, 2025 SPR25/3315 Joanna Bilotta-Simeone City Clerk City of Fitchburg 718 Main Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Dear Ms. Bilotta-Simeone: I have received the petition of Nicholas Roman 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 October 26, 2025, Mr. Roman requested “. . . copies of the following public records related to the Fitchburg Redevelopment Authority (FRA):” [1] All emails, correspondence, or attachments referencing “Quantum Edge Precision” or “QEP” between May 1 and October 25, 2025[;] [2] All FRA Board meeting minutes, notes, and votes regarding [an identified] Suite . . . / . . . Boulder Drive within the same period[;] [3] All correspondence between the Fitchburg Redevelopment Authority and Leonardo DRS concerning . . . Boulder Drive or Putnam Place between May 1 and October 25, 2025. The City responded on October 27, 2025, October 30, 2025, and, following correspondence from Mr. Roman to the City, on November 4, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Roman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3315, 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 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 SPR25/3315 Page 2 November 24, 2025 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, October 30th, and November 4th Responses In its October 27, 2025 response, the City Clerk acknowledged receipt of Mr. Roman’s request and noted that the request “is being forwarded to the City Department(s) that would be able to provide the requested records.” In its October 30, 2025 response, a City representative provided a Dropbox link to responsive records and stated, “[p]lease refer to the Dropbox Link to view all emails between and referencing the FRA and Quantum Edge Precision between May 1 and October 25, 2025.” The City representative noted that the Dropbox also contained, “screen shots of . . . social media posts as well the 2 links” and explains that the screenshots and links were included in the City’s production of records because they are referenced in the responsive emails also provided to Mr. Roman through the Dropbox link. Also in its October 30, 2025 response, the City representative cited G. L. c. 30A, §§ 22(f), (g) of the Open Meeting Law to withhold records responsive to Item 2 of the request and stated, “our discussion for all lease-related matters is held in Executive Session. . . . [B]ecause we also talked about other non-related projects within the same executive session and because they are on-going, the Board has voted to approve the minutes, but to not release them to the public.” The City representative further advised, “because we are currently in the middle of negotiations with DRS, we have also voted not to release the minutes until the 2 parties have come to an agreement.” Subsequently, in an email to the City on October 31, 2025, Mr. Roman indicated that City’s production of records included responsive records, “but also contained unrelated personal materials, such as screenshots of social media posts . . .” which he asserted, “fall outside the scope of [his] request[.]” He additionally objected to the City’s response to Item 2 and stated, “the law typically requires a record-by-record explanation and a segregability statement. . . .” In its November 4, 2025 response, counsel for the City advised that that the City “received and reviewed [Mr. Roman’s] October 31, 2025 correspondence” and confirmed that

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/3315 Page 3 November 24, 2025 the City “provided [Mr. Roman] with all records responsive to his request.” Subsequently, in a telephone conversation between this office and the counsel for the City on November 21, 2025, the City counsel confirmed that it provided all responsive records in the City’s possession outside of the records responsive to Item 2 that the City withheld pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, as indicated in its October 20, 2025 response. Open Meeting Law The City’s October 30, 2025 response to Item 2 of Mr. Roman’s request raises issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). An interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office. Consequently, I decline to opine on the portion of Mr. Roman’s appeal as it concerns Item 2 of his request at this time. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that the parties contact the Attorney General’s Office if they seek a determination on this matter. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Roman states that the City representative who issued the City’s October 30th response “was not the RAO and lacked authority to issue a records response independently[.]” He additionally states that the “unrelated personal materials” included with the City’s October 30th production of records “violates the Public Records Law” and further contends the City’s response contains “[n]o record-by-record justification or segregability statement[.] Lastly, Mr. Roman objects to the City’s November 4th response on the basis that “[t]he Nov 4 letter from outside counsel did not originate from the RAO[.]” Please be advised that in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where the City provided Mr. Roman with records responsive to his request on October 30th, and Mr. Roman objects to the inclusion of records that “fall outside the scope of [his] request” as well as to responses from City representatives where they are, “not the RAO[,]” he has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the City. As such, I find that the basis of Mr. Roman’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Roman is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Roman may wish to clarify his specific objections to the City’s responses within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/3315 Page 4 November 24, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas Roman