Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20240702)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2024 SPR24/0702 Alexandra Hayden Records Access Officer Chelmsford Police Department 2 Olde North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Hayden: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Chelmsford Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 3, 2023, Mr. Mazurczyk requested the “complete demographic information of all sworn officers [the] Department employs.” Previous Petition and Appeals This request was the subject of a previous fee petition. See SPR23/0908 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 11, 2023). In my May 11th determination, I found that given the nature of the requested records and the explanation in the Department’s petition, the Department was permitted to charge for time spent segregating and redacting the requested records. This request was also the subject of previous appeals. See SPR23/1895 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2023); SPR23/2170 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 25, 2023) and SPR23/3056 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 3, 2024). In my January 4th determination, I found that it was unclear the number of minutes that the Department must spend per page for the redactions and it was unclear how the Department could assess a fee for “[d]ocuments reviewed & approved.” On January 18, 2024, the Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/0702, 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 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

Alexandra Hayden SPR24/0702 Page 2 March 19, 2024 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 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 Department’s January 18th Response In its January 18, 2024 response, the Department provided records and stated: While payment has not been received by Mr. Mazurczyk, as a show of good faith, the Department went ahead with processing the request. Consistent with G.L. c.66, §10(d), the Department discovered that the request could be completed in less time than estimated due to the limited number of responsive records… The Department does not have responsive records listing the demographic information of its employees… the Town notes that in previous correspondence about this request, Mr. Mazurczyk stated that “[i]t’s unclear how many sworn officers [the] Department employs.” To satisfy Mr. Mazurczyk’s request to the maximum extent that it is able, the Department has attached hereto records in its possession relative to the names of Department employees, employees’ positions at the Department, and their badge numbers and contact information. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Mazurczyk states, “[the] [d]epartment’s January 18, 2024 response is comprised of five (5) pdf files with descriptive titles… The request was and continues to be for demographic information of Department sworn officers, not employee job roles, phone extensions, etc… The Department itself described what demographic information is but failed to provide it… The Department failed to provide requested demographic information as identified and requested.” No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law the Department is not required to create a record in response to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the

Alexandra Hayden SPR24/0702 Page 3 March 19, 2024 custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, §10(a)(ii). Additionally, please note that under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, 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). Based upon a conversation between a Public Records Division staff member and a Department representative, the Department confirmed that it has no additional records responsive to the request. Conclusion Where the Department does not possess any additional records responsive to the May 3rd request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Mazurczyk is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk