Anonymous Requestor v. Fitchburg, City of (SPR 20253720)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 29, 2025 SPR25/3720 Joanna Bilotta-Simeone Records Access Officer City of Fitchburg 718 Main Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Dear Ms. Bilotta-Simeone: I have received the petition of Anonymous Requestor (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Fitchburg (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, the requestor submitted a public records request for the following: …any and all complaints, reports, communications, investigations, notices, or documents submitted by any employee, contractor, or vendor of the City of Fitchburg between January 1, 2025 and the present that concern or reference: 1. Racial discrimination 2. Discrimination based on sex 3. Discrimination based on gender identity 4. Sexual orientation discrimination 5. National origin discrimination 6. Disability discrimination 7. Harassment or hostile work environment 8. Any other discrimination-related or civil-rights-related complaint This request includes, but is not limited to: emails, text messages, written complaints, HR intake forms, internal investigation materials, notes, summaries, findings, reports, communications with supervisors or department heads, and communications with the Legal Department (excluding privileged content). The City responded on December 15, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3720, was 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

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/3720 Page 2 December 29, 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 December 15th Response In its December 15, 2025 response, the City stated, “…due to the magnitude and difficulty of your request, the City is unable to search for, compile, reproduce, and, if necessary, redact and/or segregate the responsive documents within the statutory 10-business-day timeframe. Therefore, pursuant to G.L. c. 66, §10(b)(vi), the City is extending said timeframe by 15 business days – making the new due date for the City’s response January 19, 2026.” Current Appeal In the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends, “[a]gain, the city of Fitchburg unilaterally decided they can extend the records request time frame without asking your office.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) Pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi), a records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided that, 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. Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of the requestor’s appeal. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi).

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/3720 Page 3 December 29, 2025 Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A (a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by the requestor, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once the requestor receives the response, or if the City fails to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, the requestor may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anonymous Requestor