Anonymous Requester v. Fitchburg, City of (SPR 20253740)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 5, 2026 SPR25/3740 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 responses of the City of Fitchburg (City) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 8, November 13, and November 14, 2025, the requestor submitted seven separate requests for the following information: [1] All complaints, emails, letters, text messages, or Facebook messages received by the City of Fitchburg Human Resources Department between September 1, 2025, and November 8, 2025, that allege, discuss, or reference discrimination or misconduct based on race, religion, or gender identity, involving [an identified individual] or any other City of Fitchburg employee or official.… [2] All calls, text messages, emails, and Facebook messages received or sent by [an identified individual] between November 3, 2025 and November 8, 2025, on both her personal and work devices, that relate to…. [3] All calls, text messages, emails, and Facebook messages received or sent by [an identified individual] between September 1, 2025, and November 8, 2025, on both her personal and work devices, that allege, discuss, or reference claims of discrimination or misconduct based on race, religion, or gender identity, involving the Mayor or any other City of Fitchburg employee or official.… [4] All call logs and phone bills for any telephone numbers or devices used by [an identified individual] for official City of Fitchburg business between September 1, 2025, and November 13, 2025. This includes, but is not limited to…. 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 SPR25/3740 Page 2 January 5, 2026 [5] All emails sent to or received from the Fitchburg Fire Chief for the period of October 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025. This request includes, but is not limited to…. [6] All emails sent to or received from the Fitchburg Police Chief for the period of October 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025. This request includes, but is not limited to…. [7] All emails sent to or received from the Fitchburg Police Chief for the period of October 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025. This request includes, but is not limited to…. The City responded on November 25, 2025 and December 10, 2025, and assigned reference number PRR 25-185 to the requests. Unsatisfied with the responses, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3740, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a supplemental response on December 29, 2025 to Requests 6 and 7. 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 the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends, “I would like to appeal this response, and request that the city respond to each request individually because they were all separate requests. Additionally, I’d like to appeal the city’s request for an extension because they did not request an extension from your office and id [sic] ask that you order the city to produce the records within the 10 day period prescribed by law.”

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/3740 Page 3 January 5, 2026 On December 30, 2025, regarding the City’s December 29, 2025 supplemental response to Requests 6 and 7, the requestor stated, “I am not appealing the denial its self, I am appealing the fact that it came in 27 business days, not the 25 maximum that the city has under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi).” The City’s November 25th and December 10th Responses In its November 25, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of the seven public records requests and 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 records 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….” In its December 10, 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 records 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 2, 2026.” Timeliness in Providing Records On December 29, 2025, the City provided a supplemental response to Requests 6 and 7, stating, “…the language of your request is very broad and calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of your request and make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related to the category of materials you requested. You have therefore failed to satisfy the statutory standard….” Where the City provided a response to Requests 6 and 7 on December 29th, and the requestor does not appear to appeal the substance of this response, I find this portion of the requestor’s appeal resolved. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and 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.

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR25/3740 Page 4 January 5, 2026 G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where the requestor submitted Requests 1 through 5 on November 8th, 13th and 14th, it is unclear why the City has not provided the responsive records. 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). 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); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide the requestor 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. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anonymous Requestor