MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20211124)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 05-03-2021

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20211124 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Stanley Mazurczyk concerning records held by Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk, opened 05-03-2021. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20211124
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Stanley Mazurczyk
Custodian
Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk
Date Opened
05-03-2021
Date Closed
05-12-2021
Time to Comply
1 Business Day

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 12, 2021 SPR21/1124 Marissa Cameron Records Access Officer Town of Chelmsford 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Cameron: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Town of Chelmsford (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 27, 2021, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “all records pertaining [to the Town Manager’s] future employment matters/prospects.” The Town responded on April 12, 2021, indicating “[t]here are no documents responsive to your request.” Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk appealed, and this case 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 town 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. 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

Marissa Cameron SPR21/1124 Page 2 May 12, 2021 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk contends that the Town “failed to provide [a] copy of [the Town Manager’s] current contract expiring June 31, 2021 and Court’s decision pertaining Open Meeting litigation.” Records in Existence It is unclear from the Town’s response whether it possesses records responsive to Mr. Mazurczyk’s request. 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). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). In an email to Mr. Mazurczyk on April 22, 2021, the Town indicates “[p]er Section 4 of the Town Charter, the Town Manager is appointed for an indefinite term.” The Town must clarify whether it possesses any records responsive to this request. Open Meeting Law In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk raises an issue potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address that issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Mazurczyk with a response to his 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 this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk