Collins, Cynthia v. Amesbury, City of (SPR 20260182)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0182 Jennifer Smith City Clerk City of Amesbury 62 Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Smith: I have received the petition of Cynthia Collins appealing the response of the City of Amesbury (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 5, 2025, Ms. Collins requested: Timeframe Requested: October 25, 2025 - December 5, 2025. Request Scope: This request pertains specifically to the October 30 AIHS boiler incident, all municipal response actions, building safety determinations, coordination with APS, and all communications involving the AIHS lease, landlord responsibilities, rent discussions, and potential lease termination. [1] Fire Department Communications Please provide all emails, texts, memos, reports, drafts, photos, call logs, notes, and communications sent or received by:  [An identified individual][;]  Any Amesbury Fire Department personnel involved in inspections of AIHS[.] Topics include:  The October 30 incident[;]  Safety concerns, boiler condition, electrical issues, or alarm panel status[;]  Asbestos or lead concerns raised to APS[;]  Recommendations regarding building closure or re-occupancy[;] 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

Jennifer Smith SPR26/0182 Page 2 February 3, 2026  Communications with Amesbury Public School (APS), the landlord, or the Mayor’s Office[.] [2] Board of Health / Public Health Communications Provide all emails, memos, reports, assessments, and communications regarding:  Asbestos status[;]  Air quality, environmental testing[;]  Lead paint concerns[;]  Building safety[;]  Recommended remediation or abatement procedures[;]  Communication with APS, lnspectional Services, or the landlord[.] [3] lnspectional Services Communications Provide all records from:  [Two identified individuals][;]  Any inspector involved with AIHS[.] Related to:  Structural concerns[;]  Egress, exit signs, fire safety[;]  Electrical systems[;]  Boiler, mechanical systems[;]  Any inspection refusal, delay, or scheduling issue[;]  Internal discussions referencing APS, AIHS, the landlord, or the Mayor’s Office[.] [4] Mayor’s Office Communications Provide all communications involving:  [An identified individual][;]  Any member of [an identified individual’s] office[.] On topics including:  AIHS building condition[;]  Lease concerns or discussions[;]  Rent payment status or disputes[;]  Public messaging or guidance to APS[;]  Asbestos, lead, or environmental safety concerns[;]  Coordination with APS or the Fire Department[.] [5] Communications with the Landlord All Saints Anglican Church Provide all communications exchanged between municipal staff and:  [An identified individual][;]  Members of the Vestry[;]  Any church trustee, representative, or agent[.]

Jennifer Smith SPR26/0182 Page 3 February 3, 2026 Topics include:  The October 30 incident[;]  Required repairs or remediation[;]  Inspection access or delays[;]  Lease obligations or landlord responsibilities[.] Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0043 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2026). In my January 16th determination, I learned that the City provided Ms. Collins with a supplemental response on December 16, 2025. The City responded on December 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Collins petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0182, 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. 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 16th Response On December 16, 2025, the City stated: Please be aware that your public records request for emails as presented does not “reasonably describe the records sought” as required under M.G.L. c. 66, §10 and 950 CMR 32.06(2)(h).

Jennifer Smith SPR26/0182 Page 4 February 3, 2026 The request asks for email communications from various individuals, named and unnamed, relating to various topics, but does not identify: • Specific senders or recipients • Keywords that can be used to perform a search • A date range • Any other objective criteria that would allow the City to locate responsive records According to our IT Department, a topic-based request cannot be executed as a technical query and would require staff to read and interpret large volumes of email content, resulting in weeks, if not months, of research. Please clarify the request with specific search terms (keywords), senders/recipients, and a date range so that the city can generate an estimate of cost to perform a reasonable and technically feasible search. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Collins contends: Despite acknowledging that compliance would require staff time and effort, the City’s December 16 response does not include a fee estimate, does not provide a production timeline, and does not otherwise respond as required by law. Instead, it continues to condition compliance on additional requester-provided specificity that is not required by statute. Items 1, 2, & 3: Reasonable Description of Records Sought A request for records must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id. As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).

Jennifer Smith SPR26/0182 Page 5 February 3, 2026 The City is further advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). With regard to Items 1 and 2 of Ms. Collins’ request, Ms. Collins has provided descriptions of the categories of records she is seeking, including, among other things, a timeframe, an identified incident with a specific date, and she has identified senders and recipients. While her request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, she has provided the sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking for Items 1 and 2 of the request. With regard to Item 3 of Ms. Collins’ request, based on the original written request and subsequent emails, I find it is unclear what specific records she is seeking. Accordingly, if Ms. Collins seeks specific records, she may wish to clarify her written request in order to reasonably describe the records requested for Item 3. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public record sought). Items 4 & 5: Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames 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:

Jennifer Smith SPR26/0182 Page 6 February 3, 2026 (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (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. With regard to Items 4 and 5 of Ms. Collins’ request, this office encourages Ms. Collins and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Collins may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the City to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Collins 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. Ms. Collins may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cynthia Collins