Lawrence, James v. Lowell, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20260280)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 11, 2026 SPR26/0280 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 December 15, 2025, Mr. Lawrence requested the following records: This request is related to the administration of public employee supplemental retirement plans (403(b) and 457(b)), the internal “Summary of Finding” prepared by [an identified individual] concerning the refund-window issue, and the District’s compliance with the statutory requirement for a written 403(b) “plan” or “written program” in effect during the relevant period. For clarity, this is a new request, separate from my November 7, 2025 public records request and the Supervisor of Records decision in SPR25/3488. The City provided a response on January 20, 2026 and January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Lawrence petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0280, 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). 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. SPR26/0280 Page 2 February 11, 2026 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 January 20th and January 23rd Response In its January 20th response, the City stated, ... the records request from December 15 has taken quite a long time already and is estimated to take even more time. In that regard, please see the attached good faith estimate and a breakdown of the estimate. In order to make sure that you you’re you records efficiently and cost effectively while also acknowledging the amount of work put into this public records request already, the City is willing to charge you only for the time spent searching for and compiling emails which took just under 4 hours. This would mean that the charge would only be $50.00. The City is willing to do this if you are willing to work with us on setting up a rolling basis by which we can give you some documents for your December 15, 2025 records request beyond January 26. The City further stated, The good faith estimate to search for, locate, compile, and make redactions required by law for the remaining materials in response to this request is 11 hours, which will be conducted by the Legal and School Departments. The total estimate to produce the voluminous records as detailed above is $225.00 ($25/hour x 9 hours). This estimate takes into account a total of 11 hours of work with the first 2 hours of that work being free under public records law. Given the volume of the request as permitted by law, you will be charged for employee search charged at the hourly rate of the lowest paid person capable of compiling, segregating, redacting, and reproducing responsive records, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(i). The employee time shall not exceed $25.00 per hour, unless otherwise authorized by the Supervisor of Records. Moreover, because the City has more than 20,000 residents, pursuant to the last decennial U.S. Census, you will not be charged for the first two hours of work associated with this request. In its January 23, 2026 response, the City states,

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR26/0280 Page 3 February 11, 2026 In regard to your December 15, 2025 records request- The City is allowed to charge up to $25 an hour for work done and work estimated to be done to complete a public records requests subject to limitations laid out in the public records law. One such limitation is the first two hours of work being free. The ability to charge for records includes time spent searching the City’s own records and compiling them. Those are the charges reflected in the fee estimate. The City is willing to charge a significantly lower amount for only the emails in exchange for producing the documents on a rolling basis. However, pursuant to allowances under public records law, the City will not produce the records until either the reduced rate is paid, or the full rate is paid. The only other option that I can see which would benefit both parties would be for you to let me know what from your December 15, 2025 request you already possess beyond certain emails. That way I can reduce the price and records based on that information. Current Appeal In his January 28, 2026 appeal, Mr. Lawrence asserts, “[t]he City’s January 20, 2026 response produced no substantive responsive records. Instead, it demanded $225 in fees before any production—fees that are barred under G.L. c. 66, §10(e) because the City did not provide a §10(b) compliant initial response on December 23, 2025, including the itemized good-faith estimate required by §10(b) (viii).” G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under subsection (b).” Where Mr. Lawrence submitted his public records request on December 15, 2025, and the City provided a response on January 20, 2026, I find it is unclear whether the City complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e). Specifically, the City must demonstrate whether it provided a response to Mr. Lawrence’s request under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) within 10 business days of receipt of the request. 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 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’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Garrett Beaulieu, Esq. SPR26/0280 Page 4 February 11, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Lawrence