Stanley Mazurczyk v. Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth - Administrative Services Division (SPR 20251407)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 3, 2025 SPR25/1407 Sofya Gray Records Access Officer Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Administrative Services Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1719 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Gray: I have received the petition of Stanley Mazurczyk appealing the response of the Administrative Services Division (Division) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 17, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk requested the following: [C]opy of response(s) your office received from the Town of Chelmsford or its agents dated January 11, 2024 on January 11, 2024. Also, include copies of correspondence you received from the same source via US mail in 2024. On May 19, 2025, Mr. Mazurczyk clarified that his request was referring to “SPR24/0140.” The Division responded on May 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Mr. Mazurczyk petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1407, 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. 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

Sofya Gray SPR25/1407 Page 2 June 3, 2025 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 Division’s May 19th Response In its May 19, 2025 response, the Division provides one responsive email with two attachments. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Mazurczyk argues the following: Your ... response provides records Town of Chelmsford [its agent] send via email on January 19, 2024; not January 11, 2024. My request is for record(s) you received electronically or via US mail dated January 11, 2024 and time stamped January 11, 2024. Your response is nonresponsive to that request. 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). 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 a conversation between a Senior Attorney of the Public Records Division and a representative for the Division on May 30, 2025, the Division confirmed that it does not possess any additional records responsive to Mr. Mazurczyk’s request. Where the Division confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Mazurczyk’s request, I find that the Division has met its burden in responding to this request.

Sofya Gray SPR25/1407 Page 3 June 3, 2025 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