Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251194)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 13, 2025 SPR25/1194 Samantha Murnane Records Clerk Chelmsford Police Department 2 Old North Road Chelmsford, MA 01824 Dear Ms. Murnane: 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 April 11, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk provided a copy of a previous determination letter issued by the Supervisor of Public Records in 2024 and requested the following: Attached Supervisor of Records SPR24/0250 Determination states, “It is my understanding that the Town intends on providing a further response to Mr. Mazurczyk to address his records request. Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Mazurczyk with said response in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days.” I have no record of ever receiving a response as ordered. I’m requesting Chelmsford Police Department provide response in a manner consistent with this order. The Department responded on April 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1194, 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 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

Samantha Murnane SPR25/1194 Page 2 May 13, 2025 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk states the following: On April 11, 2025 I made attached request for records pertaining SPR24/0250 Determination. On April 28, 2025 Town of Chelmsford (Town) responded with [the] attached email authored by Town Counsel . . . . [Town Counsel] asserted the Town is unclear what I meant by “immediate” and seeks clarification pursuant to the Public Records Law. I provided that clarification in an email dated January 25, 2024 (attached) . . . . I consider Town’s response dated April 28, 2025 as nonresponsive to above clarified request. . . . The Department’s April 28th Response In its April 28, 2025 response, the Department stated the following: I understand you submitted the below public records request to the Police Department on April 11, 2025, relative to SPR24/0250. I also understand you submitted the attached public records request on April 14, 2025 to the Police Department. The attached request references SPR24/0250 but has [sic] Please note, upon review of the file, it appears that the above portion of the Department’s April 28, 2025 response was provided despite being incomplete. The Department further advised the following: In reviewing the file, the Town has determined that clarification of your request is necessary to produce a fee estimate and/or respond. The Town further notes that there is an outstanding $50 balance relative to this request. See SPR23/2992. I have attached the Town’s most recent responses on this matter for reference, which provide further context.

Samantha Murnane SPR25/1194 Page 3 May 13, 2025 As part of its response, the Department provided a copy of an April 14, 2025 request from Mr. Mazurczyk to the Department, in which he appears to reiterate his above April 11, 2025 request. The Department also provided copies of its January 11, 2024 and January 19, 2024 responses to a December 27, 2023 request from Mr. Mazurczyk for a “... copy of invoice(s) for the Verizon account(s) resulting from transaction referenced in [the original request].” Upon review of the file, it is my understanding that the December 27, 2023 request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR24/0140 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 29, 2024) and SPR24/0250 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 8, 2024). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that there is an ongoing litigation in the Massachusetts Superior Court regarding this matter. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the civil litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Mr. Mazurczyk’s request, is active and ongoing in the Middlesex County Superior Court. See Mazurczyk, Stanley vs. Town of Chelmsford, (Middlesex County Superior Court Docket No. 2481CV02978). Conclusion In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk Michael A. D’Ortenzio Jr., Esq.