Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20250666)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2025 SPR25/0666 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 February 14, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk referred to an earlier public records request, and sought the following: [1] correspondence between [two named individuals] or anyone else that led [a third individual] make above request and refined list of emails in PDF file format. [2] provide statutory reason for not making the zip file accessible from FOIADirect website[.] The Town responded on February 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0666, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in a letter to this office and Mr. Mazurczyk on March 16, 2025, the Town provided a further response. 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). 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 SPR25/0666 Page 2 March 24, 2025 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. The Town’s February 28th and March 16th Responses In its February 28, 2025 response, the Town states that “there are no records responsive to this request.” In its March 16, 2025 response, the Town further explains that it has no responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk contends that “that response is deceptive and manipulative. Town is involved in unlawful records alteration.” He goes on to argue that the “Town failed to provide records in requested format. These records exist and claiming ‘There are no records responsive to this request.’ is deceptive and unsubstantiated.” Records in Existence Please be advised that 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). Further, 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 its March 16th response, the Town further explains the following: The Town did not alter or destroy public records as alleged. The reference in Mr. Mazurczyk’s March 10, 2025 appeal that the FOIADIRECT website changed from displaying “Town decided not to make response documents public.” to “2025-0003_1.zip” was due to a technical glitch with the FOIADIRECT software. The Town generally makes publicly available all records that are produced to a requestor via FOIADIRECT, except for Police Department records due to the nature of those records. The Town is not under an obligation to do this, see 950 CMR 32.04(5)(g), but chooses to ... foster transparency and accessibility in Town government. Here, FOIADIRECT inadvertently marked the February 7, 2025 response to Mr. Mazurczyk’s subsequent request as needing to be withheld when, in fact, his request did not involve the Police Department or other sensitive record

Tricia Dzuris SPR25/0666 Page 3 March 24, 2025 category. As such, the Town changed the setting on the February 7, 2025 response to display publicly, consistent with its usual practice. Where the Town has confirmed that it does not possess responsive records, and the Town has no duty to create records or answer questions in response to a request, I find that the Town has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will 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)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk