Stanley Mazurczyk v. Chelmsford, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20251311)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 14, 2025 SPR25/1311 Patricia Dzuris Town Clerk 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 April 30, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk stated: Attached please find copy of a letter Town of Chelmsford (Town) Counsel, [an identified individual], send “BY ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY” to [a specific email address] on January 11, 2024. I’m requesting Town provide copy of an email that contained that PDF document and includes entire email header information. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1311 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 8, 2025). In my May 8th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the Town had met its burden under G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii) to provide records that were in its possession, custody, or control at the time of the request. The Town responded on May 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1311, 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

Patricia Dzuris SPR25/1311 Page 2 May 14, 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. Att’y 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 May 9th Response In its May 9, 2025 response, the Town stated: The email address [of Town Counsel] was searched within the Town email server using the email, date, recipient email address and subject provided in response to the specific request for records … The search within our system did not return any records responsive to this request. A call was made to the agent to search his emails as the Town does not have custody of the requested record. The call confirmed that the agent did not copy anyone from the Town on the email sent to [the identified individual] … The requestor is in possession of the document that he is requesting. The Town is under no obligation to create a record. Current Appeal In his May 11, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Mazurczyk characterized the Town’s response as out of compliance with the Public Records Law. Mr. Mazurczyk is advised that under the Public Records Law, “a requestor shall be entitled to receive in hand, by mail, by facsimile or electronically one copy of a public record or any desired portion of a public record.” 950 C.M.R. 32.07(1)(a) (emphasis added). Where the Town has previously provided Mr. Mazurczyk with a copy of the requested record, I find the Town has met its burden in responding to the April 30th request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now 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 of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Patricia Dzuris SPR25/1311 Page 3 May 14, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stanley Mazurczyk