Molet, Jerry v. Leominster, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20260237)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 4, 2026 SPR26/0237 Elizabeth Doiron Records Access Officer City of Leominster 25 West Street, Room 5 Leominster, MA 01453 Dear Ms. Doiron: I have received the petition of Jerry Molet appealing the response of the City of Leominster (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 19, 2025, Mr. Molet requested: …all records, documents, communications, and materials-whether in electronic or hard-copy form-pertaining to the proposed or potential warehouse development project (2021-2024) located at or associated with … Orchard Hill Road, or extension Leominster, Massachusetts, including any project described or represented as potentially generating approximately 300 full-time and/or part-time jobs. This request includes, but is not limited to, the following categories of records: [1] All correspondence (including emails, letters, text messages, and memoranda) between the Mayor, the Mayor’s Office, City officials, City staff, consultants, developers, brokers, property owners, or third parties regarding the proposed warehouse project at … Orchard Hill Road[;] [2] Any agreements, draft agreements, letters of intent, memoranda of understanding, or term sheets related to the project[;] [3] Meeting agendas, minutes, notes, presentations, or recordings of meetings (formal or informal) where the proposed warehouse project was discussed[;] [4] Economic impact analyses, job-creation estimates, feasibility studies, or development proposals referencing the anticipated creation of approximately 300 jobs[;] [5] Communications with state agencies, regional planning entities, or economic development organizations regarding the project[;] 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

Elizabeth Doiron SPR26/0237 Page 2 February 4, 2026 [6] Any internal memoranda, reports, or analyses prepared by or for the City evaluating the project’s financial, economic, or community impacts. The City responded on December 29, 2025, January 14, 2026, and January 15, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Molet petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0237, 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 29th, January 14th, and January 15th Responses On December 29, 2025, the City stated, “[y]our public records request has been received.” On January 14, 2026, the City provided numerous responses, stating, “[a]t this juncture there has not been a warehouse proposal for … Orchard Hill Park Drive. Therefore I do not have any records to that effect[;]” “[n]othing has come to the Building Department on this project yet[;]” and “[t]he Health Department has nothing on record about this.” On January 15, 2026, the City stated, “I do not find anything in the zoning board files related to this parcel.”

Elizabeth Doiron SPR26/0237 Page 3 February 4, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Molet contends: [1] The City did not produce records or issue a compliant substantive response by the statutory deadline stated by the RAO (January 13, 2026), and has not cured that noncompliance. [2] … Departmental statements that there is no “warehouse proposal” do not address the full scope of records requested (including emails and other communications; grant application/award/evaluator materials; internal scope/need documentation; contracting, reimbursement, and change‑order records; and planning/zoning communications). … [3] … The City has not provided an RAO determination that … certifies whether responsive records exist or do not exist, and … if any records are withheld, cites each exemption relied upon and provides the required explanation for withholding and segregation. [4] … The RAO’s post‑deadline “new deadline” was not accompanied by a compliant written response providing either records, a lawful denial, or a good‑faith production timetable consistent with 950 CMR 32.06(3). Records in Existence 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). 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). 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). In a telephone call between a Public Records Division staff member and a representative of the City on February 3, 2026, the City confirmed that all responsive records have been provided. Where the City has confirmed that all responsive records have been provided, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Molet’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Molet is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Elizabeth Doiron SPR26/0237 Page 4 February 4, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jerry Molet