CLICK TO ENLARGE ANY EMAILS OR IMAGES IN THIS DOCUMENT
By email to the mayor, council, and COO, and online only
To the City Council, the Mayor, Michael Tusino, and the Records Access Officers of Framingham, we have communicated with you all over the last several months, by letter or by records requests. Last City Council meeting, we heard the Mayor questioned by Michael Cannon, on some public records requests by multiple entities – not getting fulfilled. In the mayor’s response, he acknowledged violating the public records laws. This few minute video will explain the issue.
Simply the video will illustrate a disconnect between what the mayor was saying, and the reality. In his speech, he kept mentioning that he has “nothing to hide”, but the experience of the requesters shows without a doubt – that it appeared that he and his team was hiding things. Regardless of the intent, the Mayor and his administration were violating public records laws.
We are still seeking the same records that the Spicer administration turned over, from Sisitsky, The records have been requested and we expect that after this exposé – that the right thing to do would be provide the records without any further denials or delay. But only an administration with nothing to hide…. might do this.
Last week, in a separate public records request, results were returned on the request for “All emails KGarrahan@bowditch.com and Sarki Sarkesian – between 3/1/2022 and 10/4/2022”. The city got our request on 10/4/2022 and responded to it 11/9/2022. They responded to us on the 25th day, which was the last possible day to respond to us. IN THAT FOIA RESPONSE WAS PROOF – THAT THE CITY WAS WILLFULLY VIOLATING PUBLIC RECORDS LAW… We will prove that.
There is corruption. I don’t use that word lightly. Someone is corrupt. Is Sisitsky trying to hide something, in contrast to his speech? Maybe. I think this goes much deeper. I think Tusino or Sarki Sarkisian, the director of economic development is the issue. Who ever is the decision maker on what records go out or not – is corrupt, and needs to be removed immediately.
Lets go back to mid July, when a city employee sent us a printout of a massive proposed apartment complex, to our PO Box. They said that this was initially proposed a couple months prior.
With that image in hand we got to work trying to determine what this plan was all about. From the streets listed we were able to determine the location, and address, 208 Waverly St, but we wanted the full submission, the plans, and we wanted to rally the south side troops to fight any further developments, without fixing the issues already existing.
REQUEST 1:
July 19-October 11
84 Days – 59 Business Days
On July 19th we filed our first request for records, seeking all plans received by the city on apartment and mixed use buildings over 50 residential units, as well as marijuana businesses.
On the 10th day allowed to come up with a response – in traditional Framingham fashion, they pulled a number out of a hat of 58 requests filed as a reason for delaying our request another 15 business days.
This 58 number is pure bullshit. They took all the requests that were filed from the beginning of the year, ones that were not from this particular requester, and ones that they lied about in their response requiring further requests, or by extending all our requests out to the maximum days so that the number of open requests are held open longer and so they can come up with an inflated number, even when many of the requests are for the city to just post a meeting video publicly, or for meeting minutes, things that can be responded to in mere hours… and not the full month. When we go through these requests notice the responses on the 10th day or the 25th day. Only responding on the due date and not sooner, when available – and we can prove this as well.
Our appeal was fruitless:
The overburdening the city with 58 requests – trick, worked and the state granted the full 25 days, or a 15 business day extension.
The overburdening the city with 58 requests – trick, worked and the state granted the full 25 days, or a 15 business day extension. The new due date was August 23, and on August 23, the city responded.
In this responsive list, the plan we were seeking, 208 Waverly Street was not listed. On September 21, filed another appeal to the state claiming that there is no note in the text of any documents withheld under exemptions, and that documents were missing from the response. This time we were specific, telling the city the shape of the building.
The appeal as the city received it. As part of the appeal, the city also saw the email above. At this point any further denials – would not be by mistake, they would be willful.
A few days later, on September 26th the state ruled with the following message, that after talking with the city, the state was given no indication whether records existed or not, and therefore was ordered to respond within another 10 days.
On October 11, the Super Records Access Officer, responded that once again there were no other responsive records
During the time for this one request to go from beginning to end (84 days), there were two other requests filed seeking the same thing, just asking in different ways.
REQUEST 2:
August 3-September 8
36 Days – 25 Business Days
In a second request filed concurrently by one of our investigators we combined two current investigations, the city owned cars assigned to employees as well as seeking plans for any buildings received by the city when over 100 apartment units were involved. Essentially the same request, asked by a different person, in a slightly different way, targeted to get that one document we were seeking.
After the full 10 days, the city asked for an extension to the full 25 days, and on the 25th day – the city responded with plans for buildings already publicly known. 36 days elapsed between the date of request and the date of response.
You’ll want to note the date of response on this one, and the lack of any responsive documents on 208 Waverly St, and the way the question was asked in comparison to the next request.
REQUEST 2:
August 10 -August 24
14 Days – 10 Business Days
This request we came right out and told them what we wanted. We stated that we wanted all plans for specific named addresses, we didn’t mention numbers of apartments.
On the 10th business day, which was a few days after the planning board was given documents on an upcoming subdivision, in relation to this site. The city responded.
Lets talk about subdivisions first. When a change in affordable housing requirements is expected in the future, when the change would mean less profitability, people who are trying to develop housing, will often file a subdivision plan, which locks in the old zoning. The planned subdivisions are bullshit and are never used as designed, but is a zoning placeholder for a future development.
All responsive records were relevant to the site, but were historical documents on the plans for the site for decades past. The last item was the Preliminary Subdivision application as it was sent to the planning board to lock in the zoning. You can see that the plan we had received from a city employee months earlier, looks nothing like the plan for the subdivision beyond the shape of the lot.
But don’t worry, if you have been watching the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings as of late – you will know that apartments are still the plan, and as stated above, the subdivision plan was merely legal wrangling to freeze zoning.
Still, the copy of the plan that we got from a city employee months earlier – was not revealed in the responsive documents.
We were frustrated, we knew what we saw, we knew the city had it because a city employee told us they had it, and because that city employee gave us a copy of it, and we know that we asked in every possible way to get a document we just wanted the city to acknowledge. Why did we want it? Because getting it from the city proves that there is a proposal out there that could really upset the residents of the south side, who already are upset about traffic, crime, needles all over, and focusing on bringing in new people before taking care of those who already here – is upsetting to the locals. Had the city released it when we first asked for it, we could have raised the alarm and mobilized the local residents to stand up against the plan.
Or could it be that the city is working with Katherine Garrahan – the attorney for the 208 Waverly St project, to secure a site for a new city hall??? Scratching one another’s backs?
We decided to file one last request, and this one would wind up blowing up this public record hiding scandal.
REQUEST 4:
October 4 – November 9
36 Days – 25 Business Days
We knew that this particular attorney Katherine Garrahan of Bowdich & Dewey was behind a whole slew of projects in the city, and she was the point person on the subdivision application during the August Planning Board meeting. We decided to ask technology services to perform a search of several city directors, for emails sent to or from this attorney.
10 business days after our request, the city asked for more tome, and because they stated that they needed to through 150 or so emails, we were okay with the delay.
The city had an additional 15 business days, and as expected, exactly on the 25th business day – a response came through.
Because so many items were released, if you are seeking to read all the documents: CLICK HERE.
Far down in the list of responsive documents we found proof in the email below.
This email had the multiple attached plans and renderings attached to it, including the draft site plan which we has been given by a city employee many months earlier and shown below.
By the very definition of this being a plan for an apartment building over 50 and over 100 units, and a plan in the possession of the city for the site of 208 Waverly Street – this plan should have been responded to us three times over, on all three previous attempts.
What is so secret about a plan that would upset all the residents in the area, who are getting apartment after apartment, more and more traffic, and vagrancy and crime issues that aren’t getting fixed.
This document proves that the city had in it’s possession through Sarki Sarkisian, the Director of Economic Development a copy of this plan.
THE EMAIL WAS DATED JUNE 29, 2022. Therefore all the public record responses that did not include this plan – and did not claim withheld document, our record requests #1-3 above, all were dishonestly responded to. Especially in #1 where we spelt out exactly the shape of the building proposed – and the Super Records Access Officer wrote back, “I took a second look into this request as a result of the appeal and the additional information provided. The City was not in possession of any additional records on the date of the initial request (July 19th, 2022) other than what was provided to you on August 23rd, 2022.”
This was willful. Willful violation of public records laws is CORRUPTION. We believe, Sarki or Tusino are the ones behind this, but this could go to the very top. While the issue at hand isn’t very serious – it shows the lengths someone is willing to go to not be transparent or honest, for an unknown reason. If they will do it in regards to something as stupid as a plan that they don’t coming out early – what else are they doing it in relation to.
Why did we get the requested documents in the most recent records request. Firstly we asked the Technology Services department to do the search, because entrusting people to search their own mailboxes and be honest is not always the best approach – when time and time again, Spicer, Bryant, Mary Ellen Kelly, Kezer, they have all withheld documents inappropriately.
It is also possible that it was a mistake it was released, which is why we were able to expose the truth on Sam Wong’s departure… Or as by November 11th when the documents were released, that on October 12th, the Zoning Board of Appeals had this on the agenda, and therefore the proposed plan was already public.
The mayor, and his band of merry men – each need to think long and hard about what role they played in the covering up of this plan. We have two concurrent investigations – which may also be revealing similar coverups of non-important things, for unknown reasons. Sisitsky, or his administration, in start contrast to his statements, do have things to hide, and are violating the law to do it.
If you want to see the full plans for the 208 Waverly site, click the link below:
Want more proof that this project was well known about for months and months??? Check out these emails.
