Alex Carnevale v. Lowell, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20253804)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3804 Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. First Assistant City Solicitor City of Lowell 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Attorney Beaulieu: I have received the petition of Alex Carnevale appealing the response of the City of Lowell (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 7, 2025, Mr. Carnevale requested the following: [A]ccess to and copies of all records maintained by the Lowell Police Department that relate to [an identified individual’s] employment candidacy and/or personnel history, including but not limited to: [1] [An identified individual’s] personnel file as defined in M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C – including hiring materials, applications, background investigations, interview notes, evaluations, commendations, and any documents used to make employment decisions; [2] Any internal affairs or professional standards investigations in which [an identified individual] is named, whether as a subject, witness, or complainant; [3] Any disciplinary findings, reports, or communications regarding [an identified individual’s] performance, suspension, or termination (if applicable); [4] Any correspondence between the Lowell Police Department and other agencies (municipal, state, or POST Commission) regarding [an identified individual’s] candidacy or employment status; [5] Any notes or memoranda created during the hiring process or maintained in departmental internal files concerning [an identified individual]; [6] Any audio or video recordings made during or in connection to [an identified individual’s] interview, background investigation, or evaluation process, including recordings made by departmental personnel or third-party investigators acting on behalf of the department. 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

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3804 Page 2 January 8, 2026 Previous Appeals The requested records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3104 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 5, 2025); See SPR25/3473 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 9, 2025). In my December 9th determination, I ordered the City to clarify how the records could be withheld under Exemption (c). The City responded on December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Carnevale petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3804, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Carnevale’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 23rd Response In its December 23, 2025 response, the City stated, “[o]n December 5, 2025, you filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission contesting the revocation of your conditional offer of employment with the Lowell Police Department. The Civil Service

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3804 Page 3 January 8, 2026 Commission docketed your appeal as Case Number G1-25-276, and scheduled a Prehearing Conference to be held on January 27, 2026. In your public records request, you requested documents related to your employment candidacy. As a bypass appeal with the Civil Service Commission, the subject matter relevant to the appeal will specifically center around your employment candidacy with the Lowell Police Department.” Current Appeal In his December 24, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Carnevale stated, “[b]ecause the City has failed to comply with multiple directives issued by your office and continues to assert blanket exemptions previously found insufficient, I respectfully request that the Division take further enforcement action to ensure compliance with the Public Records Law.” Pending Administrative Proceeding 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. On January 7, 2026, the City provided additional documentation confirming that an administrative proceeding relating to the records at issue is currently pending before the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (MCSC). See Alex Carnevale v. City of Lowell (MCSC Docket No. G1-25-276). In light of the pending administrative matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of the administrative action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alex Carnevale Jackie Cook