James Lawrence v. Lowell, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20253805)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 9, 2026 SPR26/3805 Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. First Assistant City Solicitor City of Lowell 375 Merrimack Street, 3rd Floor Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Attorney Beaulieu: I have received the petition of James Lawrence 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 November 7, 2025, Mr. Lawrence requested the following records: ... copies of records related to LPS/City handling of retirement refund corrections for [an identified individual] during Jan 1, 2022 – Nov 6, 2025 (focus Sept 8 – Nov 5, 2025). Please search the [identified] custodians and any official accounts corresponding with Equitable ... Please include: emails (with attachments/headers), letters, directives, spreadsheets/calculations, check logs and images (issue/void/reissue/receipt), chain-of-custody, mailroom logs, Teams/Slack chats, texts on government devices, voicemails/logs, calendars, and policies/SOPs. Key terms: “403(b)[,]” “457(b)[,]” “workers’ compensation[,]” “earned income[,]” “ineligible contributions[,]” “refund directive[,]” “letter of instruction[,]” “1/1/22–9/29/25[,]” “$2,400[,]” “$1,675[,]” “City Hall has it[,]” “auditing should have,” “don’t circle back,” “check history,” “reissue,” “void,”... Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3488 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 10, 2025). In my December 10th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Lawrence’s request. The City provided a response on December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Lawrence petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3805, 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

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3805 Page 2 January 9, 2026 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 23rd Response In its December 23, 2025 response, the City states, “[a]ttached please find a letter requesting more time to complete your Public Records Request of 12/15/25 as well as the Public Records which you appealed and the SEC made a determination about on 12/10/25. While an extension is required, I noticed that 8.2 of your Public Records Request had to do with City Council and School Committee documents. You can find all School Committee and City Council meeting agendas and minutes here. The agendas will have links to whatever documents will be discussed in that week’s meeting.” The City further stated, “... under Public Records Law the City is allowed to combine Public Records Requests from the same person which are substantially similar in nature and are placed close together in time. As such, the determination and your most recent request will be treated as one request. Due to the volume of your most recent request and the request which the SEC has made a determination on, the City will need more than ten (10) days to gather the records that you are seeking. Your public records request is currently under review. However, given the ‘magnitude or difficulty of the request and other responsibilities’ of all departments involved in answering this request, the City of Lowell will not be able to respond to your request within ten (10) days ... Accordingly, the City estimates that it will have a response to your request on or before January 25, 2026.” Current Appeal In his December 24, 2025 appeal, Mr. Lawrence asserts, “[t]he City did not provide a compliant response within the ordered timeframe (no production, no specific exemptions, no

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3805 Page 3 January 9, 2026 confirmation whether responsive records exist, and no indication your office was copied as required).” In his December 30, 2025 supplemental appeal, Mr. Lawrence states, “[t]o date, the City has not produced any responsive records; has not confirmed what categories exist; has not identified any custodians/systems being searched; and has not identified any exemptions or specific reasons for withholding ... The City asserts it is “combining” my Dec. 15 Request with another request. Regardless of how the City chooses to administratively group requests, it may not use ‘combining’ to avoid the mandatory elements of §10(b), to exceed statutory time limits without agreement/approval, or to delay rolling production of readily available record categories.” Timeliness in providing records 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Lawrence’s request was originally submitted on November 7, 2025, and the City has not provided responsive records, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). However, the City has identified an estimated date as to when it intends to complete its review and provide the responsive records. See 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. I encourage Mr. Lawrence and the City to communicate further in order to facilitate producing responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(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 Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Lawrence with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR25/3805 Page 4 January 9, 2026 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. Lawrence may appeal the substantive nature of the City’ response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Lawrence