Paul Hartland v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253401)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 3, 2025 SPR25/3398; SPR25/3401 Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received two petitions of Paul Hartland appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 23, 2025 and October 24, 2025, Mr. Hartland submitted two requests to the City. The City assigned the requests reference numbers W078994-102325 and W079048- 102425, respectively. SPR25/3398 ... the complete Board of Health inspection reports conducted between January 1, 2025 and September 30, 2025. These are the reports that contain the inspector’s notes and findings, specifically the type of record that would show if a violation has occurred. Subsequent to submitting the request, Mr. Hartland narrowed the scope of the request to inspections of “food establishments, hotels, and nursing homes.” SPR25/3401 …the complete Board of Health inspection reports conducted between January 1, 2025 and September 30, 2025. These are the reports that contain the inspector’s notes and findings, specifically the type of record that would show if a violation has occurred. The City responded on October 23, 2025 and November 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Hartland petitioned this office, and these appeals, SPR25/3398 and SPR25/3401, were 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

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3398; SPR25/3401 Page 2 December 3, 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. Att’y 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 23rd and November 10th Responses In its October 23, 2025 response to request W078994-102325, the City provided one responsive document and stated “[t]his is the most responsive record possessed by Inspectional Services (for food establishments). The database does not allow us to drill down to ‘hospitals’ and ‘nursing homes.’ Requesting all individual inspection reports for all food establishments for a year is too voluminous of a request for us to process without charging a significant fee for staff time to pull and review each record individually for material that needs to be redacted.” In its November 10, 2025 response to request W079048-102425, the City stated, “[t]he [C]ity is in need of more time, up to an additional 15 business days to complete your request.” Current Appeal Regarding the City’s October 23, 2025 response, Mr. Hartland states “the attached spreadsheet is what [the City] did try to send that is not even close to what I requested.” Regarding the City’s November 10, 2025 response, Mr. Hartland states, “[the City] did send a message on 11/10 stating they needed an additional 15 days. This seems unreasonable for what should be a simple request.” Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City contacted the Public Records Division via email on November 24, 2025. The City reiterated that they were in need of additional time to respond to Mr. Hartland’s request.

Alexandra H. Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3398; SPR25/3401 Page 3 December 3, 2025 Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Hartland’s requests were originally submitted on October 23, 2025 and October 24, 2025, and the City has not provided the responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Hartland with a response, 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. Hartland may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within 90 calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Hartland