Bill Matthews v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20250669)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2025 SPR25/0669 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Bill Matthews appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 3, 2025, Mr. Matthews requested “the name and title of the person who is the designated agent for receipt of legal service for the City of Cambridge.” On March 5, 2025, Mr. Matthews clarified his request as follows: Could you please provide me with a copy of the section of the City of Cambridge Ordinance, or other official City document, that specifies which City official is the designated official for receipt of legal service. If this information is available on the City of Cambridge website, a link would be sufficient. The City responded on March 6, 2025, and assigned reference number P250421-030525 to this request. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Matthews petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0669, 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). 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

Seah Levy SPR25/0669 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 City’s March 6th Response In its March 6, 2025 response, the City states that it “is treating your inquiry as a public records request pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § 10.” The City goes on to state that “the City does not possess documentation responsive to your request.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Matthews argues the following: I received two conflicting answers. The Public Records Office on the City Law Office responded that they had no knowledge of or any public record pertaining to, this position. This is not credible as the position is provided for by Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. The City Clerk’s Office responded that I am required to hire an attorney to request this information. Records in Existence; Superior Knowledge of the Records 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). 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). However, 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 this case, based on the information provided in Mr. Matthews’ request and appeal petition, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Matthews’ request. The City is required to use its superior knowledge of the records in its possession to assist Mr. Matthews in obtaining the information he seeks. If the City does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of

Seah Levy SPR25/0669 Page 3 March 24, 2025 records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Matthews with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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: Bill Matthews