Matt Hoey v. Northampton, City of - Mayor's Office (SPR 20253708)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 31, 2025 SPR25/3708 Alan Wolf Chief of Staff City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Mr. Wolf: I have received the petition of Matthew Hoey appealing the response of the City of Northampton (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 12, 2025, Mr. Hoey requested: [1] The City of Northampton’s General Ledger for Fiscal Year 2025 (July 1, 2024 through June 20, 2025)[:] [a] This request includes the City’s general ledger (or equivalent primary accounting record), showing revenues and expenditures, as maintained in the City’s financial system, for the specified fiscal year [b] If the general ledger is maintained by fund or module, this request includes all funds for FY2025, including but not limited to: [i] General Fund[;] [ii] Enterprise Funds[;] [iii] Special Revenue Funds[;] [iv] Grant or trust funds (to the extent reflected in the general ledger)[.] [2] Fields requested[:] [a] For each ledger entry, please include all standard fields maintained in the City’s accounting system, including but not limited to: [i] Transaction date[;] [ii] Posting date[;] [iii] Fund[;] [iv] Department[;] [v] [Account number / line item[;] [vi] Vendor or payee name[;] [vii] Description or memo field[;] 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

Alan Wolf SPR25/3708 Page 2 December 31, 2025 [viii] Debit / credit amount[;] [ix] Transaction ID or journal entry number[.] [b] If any field contains information subject to a statutory exemption, please redact only the exempt field and release the remainder of the record. The City responded on December 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Hoey petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3708, 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. See 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. 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 December 16th Response In its December 16, 2025 response, the City stated: In regards to the public records request below, this is not something we can fulfill. This is the second time this year we’ve been asked for this, and I spent some time looking into it the first time, seeking advice and input from the Commonwealth, through which I determined the following, which I am copying for my response to the first related inquiry, which we also were not able to complete: “As submitted, this is too broad to be fulfilled under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Please narrow your request to a particular topic, project, or category of records that can be reasonably identified and produced.

Alan Wolf SPR25/3708 Page 3 December 31, 2025 For context, the city’s Open Checkbook Resource already provides public access to every financial transaction that impacts the general fund. This differs from the general ledger, which contains more than 37,000 journal entries, many of which include information that must [be] reviewed and potentially redacted under state law. Preparing the entire ledger for disclosure would require a significant expenditure of staff time and resources, at substantial cost to the requester. The Commonwealth’s courts have made clear that a ‘rule of reason’ governs both the obligations of agencies and the conduct of requestors. In Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeals & another (2024), the Appeals Court emphasized that ‘a request that in effect requires an agency to replicate all its data (and then apply appropriate redactions) is not a request that permits a bureau employee exerting a reasonable amount of effort to locate and produce the records.’ The decision also affirms that limits exist on what may reasonably be asked of a public agency under the Public Records Law.” Current Appeal In his December 16, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Hoey objected to the City’s response, stating, “[t]he City’s denial was improper under the Public Records Law....’” Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames Please be advised, in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents;

Alan Wolf SPR25/3708 Page 4 December 31, 2025 (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. Hoey and the City to continue to communicate directly to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Hoey may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable factors to enable the search to be processed. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Hoey and the City communicate further as described above, Mr. Hoey may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Matthew Hoey