Citizen, Concerned v. Fitchburg, City of (SPR 20260204)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0204 Joanna Bilotta-Simeone City Clerk City of Fitchburg 718 Main Street Fitchburg, MA 01420 Dear Ms. Bilotta-Simeone: I have received the petition of Concerned Citizen (requestor) appealing the response of the City of Fitchburg (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 12, 2025, the requestor made two separate requests to the City’s Department of Public Works and the Fire Department seeking 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). It is my understanding that the City assigned the requests reference numbers PRR 25-201 and PRR 25-202, respectively. The City responded on December 12, 2025, December 15, 2025, December 17, 2025, December 31, 2025, and January 16, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s 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 SPR26/0204 Page 2 February 3, 2026 responses, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0204, 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 Responses In its December 12, 2025 response, regarding PRR 25-201, the City stated, “[t]he request is being forwarded to the City Department(s) that would be able to provide the requested records…. This records request should be responded to no later than Monday, December 29, 2025.” After the requestor sought clarification of which request the City was referring to, the City stated, “[t]he City Clerk’s office is the Records Access Officer, this request was forwarded to our office from the DPW on Friday. We create the initial response, then include the offices that would be involved in answering the request. In its December 17, 2025 response, regarding PRR 25-202, the City stated, “[t]he request is being forwarded to the City Department(s) that would be able to provide the requested records… This records request should be responded to no later than Wednesday, December 31, 2025.” In its December 31, 2025 response, the City sought clarification regarding the two identical requests, and stated, “I wanted to confirm that these requests are specifically focused on the DPW and Fire departments. After speaking with IT, who are currently working through these requests, they asked that we confirm the scope to ensure we are focusing on the correct departments.”

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR26/0204 Page 3 February 3, 2026 The requestor subsequently confirmed, “[t]he request applies to the departments that they were sent to.” In its January 16, 2026 response, regarding 25-201, an attorney for the City stated: Here, like Chawla, 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. Accordingly, the City requests that you modify your request to reasonably describe the records you seek by (1) narrowing the subject matter to which the responsive records pertain; (2) specifying the City officials who received the responsive records; and (3) narrowing the date range during which the responsive records were created/received. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor argued: First off, I have no clue what public records request [the attorney] is referencing and would like him to properly reference it in his denial… This argument appears to be a deflection and a calculated attempt to hide discrimination complaints from citizens… [The City] wrote to me asking who these requests apply to, and I responded on the same day… So they should know who they apply to… [T]he Fitchburg Police Department received the request and responded to / provided the documents requested in the FIOA request to the police department. These are the exact records [the City] claims employees of the City cannot interpret the request and make a fine judgements about… Please be advised that 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.

Joanna Bilotta-Simeone SPR26/0204 Page 4 February 3, 2026 In addition, please be aware that the requests must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, 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. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Based on the above communications, this office encourages the parties to communicate further to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The requestor may wish to narrow and clarify the requests. 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 If outstanding issues remain after the requestor and the City communicate further as described above, 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: Concerned Citizen Alexander M. Castro, Esq.