Rivera, Angel v. Methuen, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20261060)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/1060 Anne Drouin City Clerk City of Methuen Searles Building, Room 112 41 Pleasant Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Attorney Beaulieu: I have received the petition of Angel Rivera appealing the response of the City of Methuen (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, Mr. Rivera requested the following records: I am writing to request formal clarification regarding the deadlines that govern the preparation and publication of City Council meeting agendas. The annual deadline calendar distributed by the Council President does not always align with the deadlines established in the Methuen City Council Rules and Procedures (January 2025), which could create uncertainty about which document prevails.… I would therefore appreciate clarification on: [1] Whether the annual deadline calendar has normative authority or whether Rules II(a) and II(c) prevail in case of discrepancy. [2] Whether any formal provision authorizes the Council President to extend the established deadlines. [3] What criteria are currently used to determine operational deadlines for each Meeting? On March 6, 2026, Mr. Rivera modified his request to include: [1] All documents, memoranda, emails, directives, internal guidelines, or written communications held by the Legal Department (City Solicitor) that establish, interpret, authorize, modify, or provide guidance regarding the operational deadlines for the preparation and publication of Methuen City Council agendas. 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

Anne Drouin SPR26/1060 Page 2 April 7, 2026 [2] Any document granting authority to the Council President to extend, alter, or modify the deadlines established in Rule II(a) or Rule II(c) of the City Council Rules and Procedures (January 2025). [3] Any document establishing the normative authority or legal basis of the annual deadline calendar distributed by the Council President. [4] Any internal or external legal guidance regarding how agenda deadlines are determined, applied, or enforced for the 2024–2025 Council term. [5] Any correspondence between the City Solicitor, the City Clerk, the Council Clerk, or the Council President concerning the interpretation or application of Rule II(a) or Rule II(c). The City provided a response on February 26, 2026 and March 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses Mr. Rivera petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1060, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on March 30, 2026, the City provided a supplemental response which Mr. Rivera appealed on March 31, 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. 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 26th, March 2nd and March 30th Responses In its February 26, 2026 response, the City stated, “[t]he March 2nd agenda will be online shortly. I’m working on your response with the other questions.” In its March 2, 2026 response, the City stated, “[j]ust wondering if I could give you a

Anne Drouin SPR26/1060 Page 3 April 7, 2026 quick call … I need to meet with the City Solicitor in regards to your request.” In response to the City’s March 2nd inquiry, Mr. Rivera stated, “I understand. However, because this is a matter involving formal rules and deadlines, I must keep the exchange in writing. Please feel free to send your clarification by email when ready.” In its March 30, 2026 response, the City stated, “[t]he City has received Mr. Rivera’s appeal. The City responded and provided him documents earlier today, please see attached.” The City further stated, The City performed a diligent search based on your request for documents sent to or from the current or previous City Solicitor with the identified parties that include the words “agenda deadline”, “agenda”, “operation deadline”, “operational deadline”, “rule II(a)” and “rule II(c)”, and no emails were found that are responsive to your request. However, in general, any and all correspondence, emails, or opinions to or from the City Solicitor’s office seeking legal interpretations or legal advice are exempt from production under the Public Records Act under the attorney-client privilege. Although in this case, no such responsive documents were found after the City’s diligent search, if there were such responsive documents in this case, they would have only been identified in a privilege log and not produced. See Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset, 449 Mass. 444 (2007). Please note further that the Public Records Act does not require any city official to answer questions from the public or provide legal interpretation or guidance. The Public Records Act only requires the City to provide documents deemed reasonably responsive to the public’s requests if such documents exist. Current Appeal In his March 31, 2026 appeal, Mr. Rivera asserts, [1] My February 24 inquiry remains unanswered. This request did not seek documents; it sought administrative clarification regarding the interpretation and application of Rule II(a) and Rule II(c). The City Clerk informed me on February 26 that she needed to consult the City Solicitor, but no written clarification has been provided. [2] The City’s search for records was incomplete. The City limited its search to emails containing specific keywords, despite my request explicitly including memoranda, directives, internal guidelines, and written communications establishing operational authority. [3] No privilege log was produced. Although the City invoked attorney-client

Anne Drouin SPR26/1060 Page 4 April 7, 2026 privilege in general terms, it did not produce a privilege log identifying any withheld documents, as required under the Public Records Law. [4] The City issued two identical responses. The second response does not address the issues raised in my appeal or my clarification sent this morning. It appears to be a repeated form letter rather than a substantive response. Based on Mr. Rivera’s claims, in conjunction with the City’s responses, it is unclear if the City possesses any additional records responsive to his request. Specifically, the City must clarify whether it possesses, “… memoranda, directives, internal guidelines, and written communications establishing operational authority[.]” 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). However, 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any additional responsive records exist. Mr. Rivera is reminded that 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 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Rivera 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. Rivera 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: Angel Rivera