Garcia, Jose v. Lawrence, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20260481)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2026 SPR26/0481 Eileen O’Connor Bernal City Clerk City of Lawrence 200 Common Street Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Ms. O’Connor Bernal: I have received the petition of Jose Garcia appealing the response of the City of Lawrence (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 16, 2026, Mr. Garcia requested, “all As-Built Utility Maps and Soil Boring Reports for the intersection of Franklin and Lowell, and Amesbury Street [and] any Utility Certification letters signed by the Water Commissioner for MassDOT Project 610924... Requesting a Utility certification for this project.” The City responded on February 3, 2026. Unsatisfied the City’s response, Mr. Garcia petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0481, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on February 10, 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. 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

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR26/0481 Page 2 February 25, 2026 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 February 3rd Response In its February 3, 2026 response, the City stated: We do not have as built drawings for contract VII since the project is not complete. Contract VII does not have any work associated with the intersection of Essex, Amesbury and Hampshire Street. We do not have dye test mitigation testing in this area for the dates you requested. We do not have hydrostatic pressure logs for the high service tower. We only have level data. We do not have soil stabilization reports in the intersection of Essex and Hampshire. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Garcia contended the City’s claims that the responsive records do not exist and argued that it is a matter of “forensic urgency and public safety.” Mr. Garcia additionally alleged that state project logs confirm the existence of records, and that “[t]he City has failed its statutory duty to retrieve these records from their vendors.” In a supplemental response on February 10, 2026, a City official forwarded a PDF which “includes a log # to assist with the tracking of the request, as well as a complete copy of the request, information as to what departments have been included in the fulfillment of the request, as well as a summary of the petitioners rights under the Public Records law.” However, it appears the PDF pertains to a separate, similar request submitted by Mr. Garcia on January 10, 2026. In addition, the City official provided “a copy of an email sent to the Petitioner on or about January 14th, 2026 from the Inspectional Services Dept stating that they are not in possession of any records relevant to this request,” and stated further, “[p]lease know that after I received this Appeal, I reached out to the Water Dept. and to the City Attorney to see what relevant documents are available, if any.” In a series of emails to this office on February 11, 2026 and February 12, 2026, Mr. Garcia further objected to the City’s responses and provided “forensic evidence” regarding the subject of his records request, noting that the “requested records are essential[.]” Based on the information provided in Mr. Garcia’s appeal petition and the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to the request. The City must clarify this. 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). To the extent that the referenced records exist, I find the City must provide them in a manner consistent with Public Records Law or identify an exemption that

Eileen O’Connor Bernal SPR26/0481 Page 3 February 25, 2026 applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Garcia 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. Garcia may 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: Jose Garcia William C. Hale III