Munro, Barb v. Holyoke, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20261028)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 6, 2026 SPR26/1028 Brenna Murphy Leary City Clerk City of Holyoke 536 Dwight Street Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Ms. Murphy Leary I have received the petition of Barb Munro, Esq., of the Law Office of Barbara A. Munro, appealing the response of the City of Holyoke (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 24, 2026, Attorney Munro requested the following: [A]ll records related to the water-main break that occurred on February 11, 2026, on Bassett Drive in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Please provide the following records, including all timestamps, logs, notes, and communications: [1] Break logs/Main break reports for this incident including time the break was first reported, time crews were dispatched, lime crews arrived, time valves located, time valves shut, time water flow was stopped, any notes regarding delays, complications or valve issues[;] [2] DPW and Water Works dispatch logs including radio dispatch logs, CAD logs, crew arrival and departure times, any internal dispatch notes[;] [3] Valve operation records including valve operation logs, valve isolation records, notes on valve failures, frozen valves, or stuck gates, GIS or valve map used during the response[;] [4] Internal Communications including all emails, texts, and internal communications between DPW staff, water works staff, supervisors, on-call personnel, emergency response staff related to this break, including communications about response time, valve issues, staffing, notifications to residents, shutoff delays[;] 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

Brenna Murphy Leary SPR26/1028 Page 2 April 6, 2026 [5] [A]ny and all 911 call logs reporting the break, the time of each call, notes or dispatch actions taken[;] [6] [A]ny photos, videos and field notes taken by city employees including DPW and Water works staff, and any reports prepared after and/or related to the incident[.] The City responded on February 24, 2026, March 4, 2026, and March 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Attorney Munro petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1028, 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. See 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. See 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Munro’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The City’s February 24th, March 4th, and March 17th Responses In its February 24, 2026 response, the City provided two responsive records in the form of a call log and a PDF labeled, “Water Main Break[.]”

Brenna Murphy Leary SPR26/1028 Page 3 April 6, 2026 In its March 4, 2026 response, the City provided an additional responsive record in the form of a zip file labeled, “Holyoke Dispatch calls 2-11-2026[.]” In email correspondence to the City on March 17, 2026, Attorney Munro stated that she “only received documents from the Holyoke Police Department” in response to her request and further noted that “[an identified City representative] from HWW and [an identified City representative] from DPW have not responded.” Subsequently, in its first of two March 17, 2026 responses, a representative for the City Clerk’s Office stated, “the water department stated they spoke to you in person and were waiting for the insurance company to communicate. [An identified City representative] can be reached at [an identified City email address].” The City Clerk’s Office representative further advised, “[t]he DPW has no information to offer.” In email correspondence replying to the City’s above March 17th response, Attorney Munro stated, “[a]ctually, this does not help. This is a PRR, separate from anything to do with insurance. . . .” In the City’s second March 17, 2026 response, a City Clerk’s Office representative recommended that Attorney Munro “[reach] out to the Water Department directly regarding [her] request” and explained that the City Clerk’s Office “serves as a central point to forward public records requests to the appropriate departments” while noting that “[the Clerk’s Office does] not maintain the records[.]” The representative further stated, “[a]s the Water Department previously indicated they were awaiting insurance communication, and you have clarified that this is a separate matter, I am now uncertain exactly what information you are seeking.” The Clerk’s Office representative again provided the contact information for the City representative referenced in the City’s initial March 17, 2026 response and stated, “[c]ontacting [an identified City representative] . . . may provide the clarification you need.” Current Appeal In her March 23, 2026 appeal to this office, Attorney Munro explains that before making her February 24, 2026 request, she spoke with the City “in person on February 17, 2026” and “specifically asked for any records related to the break,” but notes, “[the City] said [it] would not give [her] any [‘]until the insurance companies spoke.[’]” Attorney Munro states that her “insurance company has nothing to do with [the] . . . request” and requests that the Supervisor “order the City . . . to produce the requested records without further delay[.]” Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).

Brenna Murphy Leary SPR26/1028 Page 4 April 6, 2026 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.” 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). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “all records related to the water-main break[,]” as well as, “any notes regarding delays[,]” “Internal Communications . . . related to this break. . .” and “any reports prepared after and/or related to the incident” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Attorney Munro may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records she is seeking. Once Attorney Munro has provided the needed clarification, the City must provide a response within 10 business days. This office encourages Attorney Munro and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The City must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. 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, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Munro is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office share 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Barb Munro, Esq.