Michael Maroney, Esq. v. Fall River, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253494)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 10, 2025 SPR25/3494 Brenda Beaudry Record Access Officer City of Fall River One Government Center Fall River, MA 02722 Dear Ms. Beaudry: I have received the petition of Michael Maroney, Esq. appealing the response of the City of Fall River (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 21, 2025, Mr. Maroney requested the following: … concerning the property located at … Oliver Street, Fall River, MA (the “Property”). We request all documents the City of Fall River, MA (the “City”) has in its possession, custody or control (including any documents in archives) on the following topics: [1] All applications submitted to the City for purposes of construction or building permitting at the Property. [2] All documents evidencing the City Zoning Board’s approval of applications for construction or building on the Property. [3] All documents evidencing Certificates of Inspection for the Property from 1964 to present. [4] All documents evidencing annual inspections by City employees and the Bureau of Fire Prevention and Investigation of the Property. [5] All written and electronic correspondence with, or internally about, the Property. [6] Copies of City meeting minutes and/or recordings relating to applications for building or construction on the Property. 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

Brenda Beaudry SPR25/3494 Page 2 December 10, 2025 [7] All documents concerning the fire alarm systems at the Property. [8] All documents concerning the sprinkler system at the Property. [9] All documents evidencing violations of code or ordinance on the Property. [10] All documents reflecting re-applications for Certificates of Inspection by Owners following findings of non-compliance with any City code or ordinance. [11] All documents containing guidance on partnerships with third parties for the inspection of properties for compliance with City and State laws. [12] All documents concerning any product recall of sprinklers. The City responded on August 25, 2025, and assigned reference number R000457- 082225 to the request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Maroney appealed, and this case, SPR25/3494, 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 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. See 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 August 25th Response On August 25, 2025, the City uploaded responsive records with redactions to the City’s public records portal.

Brenda Beaudry SPR25/3494 Page 3 December 10, 2025 Current Appeal In his November 21, 2025 appeal, Mr. Maroney contends: The Agency’s Response included incomplete responses to several categories of documents sought in the Public Records Request, and excluded several other categories of records altogether. Furthermore, the Agency’s Response did not provide any written explanation on whether each category of records exist, cite any statutory exemptions to disclosure, or otherwise provide sufficient factual or legal justification for withholding the requested records. Further on November 25, 2025, Mr. Maroney clarified with this office that, “… we do not object to the redactions in the City Administrator’s August 25th response. Additionally, we can confirm that no cover letter or additional correspondence was provided with the records.” Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control The City is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on the City’s response, and the information provided in Mr. Maroney’s appeal, it is unclear if the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. If the City does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Maroney with a response to the request, 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. Maroney may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Brenda Beaudry SPR25/3494 Page 4 December 10, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Maroney, Esq.