Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20221469)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 12, 2022 SPR22/1469 Frank T. Reen Chief Assessor Town of Chelmsford 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Mr. Reen: 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 May 16, 2022, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “all other records Board of Assessors (Board) relied on to deny [his] application for abatement [and] records of such scrutiny imposed on other Town of Chelmsford taxpayers that filed abatement applications from FY2019 to date.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/1176 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 2, 2022). In my June 2nd determination, I ordered the Town to provide a subsequent response. Subsequently, the Town responded on June 7, 2022. 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 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. Att’y 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 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

Frank T. Reen SPR22/1469 Page 2 July 12, 2022 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk contends that the Town’s response is “nonresponsive” and he argues that the “Town continues to evade providing substantive responses to [his] requests.” The Town’s Responses In its June 7, 2022 response, and in previous responses, the Town explains that it has no records responsive to Mr. Mazurczyk’s request. Records in Existence 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). Additionally, 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In a telephone conversation with this office on June 28, 2022, the Town’s Chief Assessor confirmed that the Board of Assessors (Board) has no additional responsive records. Specifically, as to the first part of the request, the Board relied on no documents or records other than the form submitted by Mr. Mazurczyk in order to deny his request. Further, the Board has not previously used return receipt mail to request property inspections, and so has no records responsive to the second part of the request. Conclusion Where the Town has confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Mazurczyk’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk