← Back to Search
Christopher Weeks v. Framingham, City of (SPR 20250516)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Administratively closed · Filed 02-21-2025
ClosedAppealResolved
SPR 20250516 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Christopher Weeks concerning records held by Framingham, City of, opened 02-21-2025. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Administratively closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20250516
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Christopher Weeks
- Custodian
- Framingham, City of
- Date Opened
- 02-21-2025
- Date Closed
- 02-25-2025
- Date Request Submitted
- 01-03-2025
- Response Provided Date
- 01-29-2025
- Processing Fees Charged
- 0.00
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2025 SPR25/0516 Paul J. Iversen Records Access Officer City of Framingham 150 Concord Street, Room B-37 Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Mr. Iversen: I have received the petition of Christopher Weeks appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 3, 2025, Mr. Weeks requested records relating to several identified individuals and an identified location within the City. The City provided a response on January 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Weeks petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0516, 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 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 Paul J. Iversen SPR25/0516 Page 2 February 25, 2025 The City January 29th Response In its January 29, 2025 response, the City provided Mr. Weeks with records responsive to his request. Current Appeal In his February 20, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Weeks claimed that the City possessed additional records responsive to his request. In an email communication to this office on February 24, 2025, the City confirmed that it had provided Mr. Weeks with all responsive records in its possession. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends only 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). Conclusion Given that all responsive records have been provided, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Weeks 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)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Weeks Colleen Kehew