Rosa Genao de Checo v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253450)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3450 Eileen O’Connor Bernal City Clerk City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Ms. Bernal: I have received the petition of Rosa Genao de Checo 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 October 20, 2025, Ms. Genao de Checo requested: ALL RECORDS of [an identified individual], letters, complaints, meetings, arbitration, investigations, videos, voice recordings, Human Resources letters or documents, Union documents, Mayor Office letters or documents, Inspectional Services Department letters, emails or Documents; [a second named individual] emails, documents or letters; [a third named individual] emails, documents or letters, [a fourth named individual] emails, documents, or letters or any relevant documents related to [an identified individual]. Inspections carried out or conducted from September 2022 to the present October 2025, comments, notes, activities, investigations, letters, emails or any document related to [a named individual]: [a list of ten locations]. On October 23, 2025, Ms. Genao de Checo requested “two copies” of the records listed in her October 20th request. The City assigned reference numbers 2025-FOIA-1327, and 2025- FOIA-1347 to these requests. The City responded on October 22, November 5, and November 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Ms. Genao de Checo petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3450, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to this office and Ms. Genao de Checo on December 1, 2025. 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 SPR25/3450 Page 2 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Genao de Checo argues the following: My original requests, submitted on October 20 and October 23, 2025, sought copies of all records, emails, letters, complaints, meetings, investigations, videos, and related materials involving [an identified individual], and related inspections or investigations from September 2022 to October 2025. These records also include materials connected to multiple Lawrence business locations and City departments. . . . As of today’s date, no records have been produced, and the City has not provided a written explanation citing specific exemptions under 950 CMR 32.08(1) or a projected completion date. The correspondence does not satisfy the requirements of the Massachusetts Public Records Law, which mandates a clear response and justification for any withholding of records. The City’s Responses In its November 5, and November 7, 2025 responses, an attorney for the City requested to speak with Ms. Genao de Checo concerning her request. In an email to the City on November 6, 2025, Ms. Genao de Checo indicates that her attorney will contact the City on her behalf.

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/3450 Page 3 December 5, 2025 In its December 1, 2025 response, the City further explains the following: Ms. Rosa Checo was in City Hall and while she was in the City Clerk’s Office, I called the City Attorney for her, and asked for a status update. The City Attorney said he was in the office, and if she could come to his office to clarify the request, he would appreciate it. She said that she did not feel comfortable talking to him without her attorney there. She said she would have her attorney call him. I believe she sent that message in writing too. City Attorney Tim Houten believed he would get a phone call from Attorney Scott Gleason where they would clarify the request and outline the amount of time needed. As Ms. Checo stated that she is represented by Counsel, Attorney Houten did not want to reach out to her directly and her attorney has not called him yet. Reasonable Description of the Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgements about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Additionally, please be advised that according to 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(a), “upon request, a requester shall be entitled to receive in hand, by mail, by facsimile or electronically one copy of a public record or any desired portion of a public record.” This office encourages the requestor and the Ms. Genao de Checo to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR25/3450 Page 4 December 5, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Genao de Checo wishes to submit another public records request to the City as outlined above, and is unsatisfied with the response, she may again appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rosa Genao de Checo