Blandino, Peter v. Quincy, City of (SPR 20261186)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2026 SPR26/1186 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy Office of the City Clerk 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Peter Blandino, of the Patriot Ledger, appealing the response of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 26, 2026, Mr. Blandino requested “[p]urchase orders for the Department of Elder Services between June 1, 2025, and March 26, 2026.” The City provided a response on April 1, 2026, which included a spreadsheet of “purchase orders from June 2025 to April 1, 2026[.]” Subsequently, in an email to the City on the same date, Mr. Blandino clarified his request and stated, “[t]hese records list purchases. I want the individual purchase orders for each purchase.” The City responded to Mr. Blandino’s clarified request on April 1, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response and claiming to not yet have received responsive records, Mr. Blandino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1186, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response to Mr. Blandino and this office on April 1, 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. 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR26/1186 Page 2 April 14, 2026 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 April 1st Responses In its April 1, 2026 response to Mr. Blandino’s clarified request, a representative for the City explained that the spreadsheet provided in response to Mr. Blandino’s initial March 26, 2026 request, “is the way MUNIS formats this information for printing purposes.” The City representative additionally advised that the record provided by the City in response to the initial March 26th request “is the same information contained in a purchase order” and further claimed that, “[t]hus, [the clarified April 1, 2026] request has been answered by the City[.]” In its supplemental April 1, 2026 response to the clarified request, a City representative stated the following: Mr. Blandino made a FOIA request on March 26, 2026. My colleague spent a great deal of time compiling the INFORMATION which Mr. Blandino requested. . . . I appreciate the fact that Mr. Blandino had the curtesy to at least acknowledge the time my colleague spent compiling this information. However, I do not appreciate his comment that the information “may or may not” be the same information, which is displayed on the actual purchase order, insinuating that I am being untruthful. I informed Mr. Blandino, ALL of the information is the same; it is simply the format in which MUNIS runs a request for purchase orders, which is in Excell [sic]. The amount of time for my colleague to print out every one of the Purchase Orders would be taxing on our very small office and would undoubtedly warrant us charging a fee. . . . Again, the INFORMATION Mr. Blandino received is the same INFORMATION contained on the Purchase Order. Just laid out differently on paper. The spirit of the Freedom of Information Act is to provide INFORMATION to the public when requested. I do not feel that, in the spirit of that very law, a person seeking this information should, once they receive it, turn around and dispute the FORMAT in which the information was provided to them. Current Appeal In his April 1, 2026 appeal petition, Mr. Blandino indicates that the City “provided a list of purchase orders, not the purchase orders themselves[,]” and provides the following regarding his objections to the City’s responses to his clarified April 1, 2026 request:

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR26/1186 Page 3 April 14, 2026 . . . I’ve forwarded an [April 1, 2026] [response] from [an identified] purchasing agent . . . which confirms that the city did not provide the records I requested. . . . The [response] acknowledges that I was provided not the purchase orders, but [‘]the same information contained in a purchase order.[’] This may or may not be true, but it doesn’t excuse the city from providing public records upon request in accordance with state law. Preferred Format of the Requestor The City is advised that a records access officer must, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records must be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). In this case, where Mr. Blandino’s clarified April 1, 2026 request seeks “the individual purchase orders for each purchase” for “the Department of Elder Services between June 1, 2025, and March 26, 2026[,]” the City must clarify whether it is feasible to provide the responsive records in Mr. Blandino’s preferred format. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Blandino with a response to his clarified April 1, 2026 request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Peter Blandino