Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20232992)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 27, 2023 SPR23/2992 Tricia Dzuris Records Access Officer Town Clerk Department Town of Chelmsford 50 Billerica Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Dzuris: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Town of Chelmsford (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 23, 2023, Mr. Mazurczyk requested “an unredacted version of Chelmsford School Resource Officer ... phone logs for the month of January, 2021.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/2158 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 22, 2023). In my September 22nd determination, I closed SPR23/2158 in light of the Town providing a supplemental response on September 20, 2023. 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 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

Tricia Dzuris SPR23/2992 Page 2 December 27, 2023 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 Town’s September 7th and September 20th Responses In its September 7, 2023 response, the Town states the following to Mr. Mazurczyk: In response to a previous public records request, the Town undertook redaction of the records you requested. These records have not been provided to you because the required fee, as authorized by the Supervisor of Records in SPR22/2829 (see Letter of December 16, 2022), for these records remains outstanding. Upon payment in the amount of fifty dollars ($50), the Town will provide you redacted phone logs for the officer and month above. In its September 20th response, the Town further states the following: [T]he Town filed a fee petition relative to the release of redacted phone records in SPR22/2829, which was granted by [the Supervisor] via letter of December 16, 2022. ... The Town will release the redacted phone logs once the requestor pays the outstanding fifty dollar ($50) fee. The Town is advised that 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(n) provides in pertinent part as follows: Failure to Pay Fee. A records access officer may provide written notice denying access to public records to a requester who has failed to compensate the custodian for previously produced public records, provided: 1. a fee estimate for a previous request was prepared in compliance with 950 CMR 32.00 and the requester agreed to pay the previous fee; 2. the written notice details the reasons for denial, including an itemized list of any balances attributed to previously produced records. 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(n). Based on the information provided in the Town’s September 7th and September 20th responses, it is unclear whether “the requester agreed to pay the previous fee” referred to by the Town. It is additionally unclear whether the records referred to by the Town were “previously produced.” See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(n). The Town must clarify these matters.

Tricia Dzuris SPR23/2992 Page 3 December 27, 2023 In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk also contends that “it’s unclear why exemption (a), (c), and (f) are applicable/suitable to redact phone call date, time, origination, destination, duration and usage type information (metadata).” Please be advised that where the Town has yet to provide records, I am unable to opine on any withheld records or the application of any exemptions the Town may cite at this time. 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk