Melody Anderson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20242027)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 29, 2024 SPR24/2027 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Shapiro: I have received the petition of Melody Anderson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Ms. Anderson requested specific incident reports and 911 calls from the City. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR24/1258 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 8, 2024) and SPR24/1424 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 24, 2024). In my May 24th determination, I closed SPR24/1424 in light of the City providing Ms. Anderson with a supplemental response on May 21, 2024. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, and claiming the City possesses additional records, Ms. Anderson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/2027, 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. Attorney 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR24/2027 Page 2 July 29, 2024 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 City’s May 21st Response In its May 21, 2024 response, the City provides “one additional incident report” in addition to others it had previously provided and states that it has “confirmed there are no other records responsive to [the] request.” Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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). 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 this office and Ms. Anderson on July 17, 2024, the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to the request. Conclusion Where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Anderson’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Melody Anderson