Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20253440)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3440 Paul J. Iverson Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iverson: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 10, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested the following: ...copies of all records, documents, emails, text messages, social media communications, notes, or correspondence — whether written, electronic, or recorded — pertaining to the following subject concerning his nomination, vetting, appointment, or discussion as an alternate or member of the Framingham Agricultural Advisory Committee, including communications with members of the public, political staff, or private individuals. [1] Records Related to the Appointment of [an identified individual] [a] All records, communications, emails, text messages, or internal memoranda between [identified individuals] and [m]embers of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, [b] This includes any correspondence referencing or relating to the Facebook group “Framingham Unfiltered” or its administrators. [2] Framingham Unfiltered / Social Media Harassment [a] All records, emails, or communications referencing: Framingham Unfiltered, Framingham Forward (if applicable as predecessor name), [identified individuals] and/or any other social media pages used for political discussion, that discuss or reference [an identified individual] ... or my service dogs. [b] This includes any correspondence between city officials, law enforcement officers, or city employees and members or administrators of Framingham 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

Paul J. Iverson SPR25/3440 Page 2 December 5, 2025 Unfiltered. [3] Civil Rights Complaints and ADA-Related Records [a] All records, communications, or internal memoranda concerning: [m]y ADA- related complaints regarding the Burger King incident (November 2022), The traffic stop (September 2022), The MetroWest Medical Center incident (June 2023), [b] And any related civil rights or ADA grievances filed with the city, mayor’s office, or police department. This includes all correspondence between [identified individuals]. [c] Framingham Legal Department, and/or [a]ny external law firms or investigators retained by the city. [4] Communications [b]etween City of Framingham and External Officials [a] All communications, records, or notes involving: Ashland Police Department [identified individuals], District Attorney’s Office of Middlesex County, Framingham District Court personnel, [identified] State Representative or [a]ny other government entity, concerning [an identified individual] civil rights complaints, or Framingham Unfiltered. [5] Conflict of Interest / Ethics Disclosures [a] All documents or correspondence concerning: Any conflict of interest, financial disclosure, or ethics review involving [identified individuals], or City Council members related to Framingham Unfiltered, [an identified individuals], or civil rights complaints filed by [an identified individual]. [b] Any internal communications about the city’s obligation to avoid conflicts or maintain impartiality in pending complaints or investigations. [6] Framingham Legal Department / Obstruction of Communications [a] All records and internal communications regarding: Blocking, filtering, or rejecting emails from ... @gmail.com or any related Gmail account, as well as social media posts by [an identified individual] addressing the city of Framingham and directly accusing [an identified individual] of criminal conspiracy [c]omplaints or discussions within the city about my prior public records requests or appeals to the Supervisor of Records, and [b] Any legal guidance or response prepared by or for the City Solicitor’s Office regarding my communications or federal complaint. The City provided Mr. Weeks with a response on November 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3440, was opened as a result.

Paul J. Iverson SPR25/3440 Page 3 December 5, 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. The City’s November 19th Response In its November 19, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]hese records are the subject of an ongoing federal lawsuit in which you are a party (docket No. 25-30165-MGM). As these records are the subject of active litigation, please request any documents under the applicable rules of discovery.” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Weeks states, “[t]his appeal concerns the City’s refusal to produce any portion of a highly detailed, precisely scoped records request (No. 2025-3894), based entirely on a justification that Massachusetts law expressly prohibits.” Active Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending United States District Court case in Springfield: Weeks v. Town of Ashland, Town of Framingham, et al. Docket No. 3:25-cv-30165 MGM, I decline to opine on

Paul J. Iverson SPR25/3440 Page 4 December 5, 2025 this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks