Patrick Courtney v. Newton, City of (SPR 20253364)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 26, 2025 SPR25/3364 Drew Willison City Clerk City of Newton 1000 Commonwealth Avenue Newton Center, MA 02459 Dear Mr. Willison: I have received the petition of Patrick Courtney, of the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Massachusetts, appealing the response of City of Newton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 12, 2025, Mr. Courtney requested “certified payroll records for all work performed on the Horace Mann School Addition.” The City responded on November 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Courtney petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3364, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, a representative for the City provided a supplemental response in an email to Mr. Courtney and this office on November 26, 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. 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

Drew Willison SPR25/3364 Page 2 November 26, 2025 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 November 13th and November 26th Responses In its November 13, 2025 response, the City advised Mr. Courtney that his request “is vague and does not reasonably identify the specific records sought” and additionally cited Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeals, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024), while noting that the request “lacks sufficient detail to enable City staff to identify responsive records using reasonable effort.” In citing Friedman, the City explained, “the City’s comptroller’s office does not house certified payroll records by project (ie. Horace Mann School addition), but can be found by specific contractors” and further asked Mr. Courtney to “[p]lease send the name(s) of the . . . contractors whose certified payroll records [he is] looking for.” In correspondence replying to the City on the same date, Mr. Courtney contended that his request is “not vague at all.” He further noted, “if [the City would] like to send me a list of all contractors id [sic] be happy to narrow the scope of my request.” In its supplemental November 26, 2025 response, a City representative stated that they have received “copies of [‘]weekly certified payroll reports[’] and [‘]weekly statements of compliance[’] that are potentially responsive” and noted that they “will contact Mr. Courtney . . . to understand whether these are the records he seeks[.]” The City representative further indicated that if the records are responsive, “it is [the City’s] hope to produce these records to him as soon as possible[.]” Current Appeal In his November 14, 20245 appeal petition, Mr. Courtney objects to the City’s claims that his request is vague. This office encourages Mr. Courtney and the City to continue communicating to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate the provision of any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Conclusion In light of the City’s November 26th response, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Courtney with a response to his request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Courtney may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Drew Willison SPR25/3364 Page 3 November 26, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patrick Courtney