Bill Podszus v. Sutton, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20251720)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 1, 2025 SPR25/1720 Chief Thomas Calouro Sutton Police Department 489 Central Turnpike Sutton, MA 01590 Dear Chief Calouro: I have received the petition of W. William Podszus appealing the response of the Sutton 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 June 9, 2025, Mr. Podszus referred to a specified incident and requested the following: [T]he report number of this second complaint, and the date that it was made. . . . If you will provide the report of this second complaint, and of any additional complaints (if there are any), I respectfully request that they be provided in electronic format, namely, either as a WORD or PDF file, and sent via email. The Department responded on June 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Podszus petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1720, 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. 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 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

Chief Thomas Calouro SPR25/1720 Page 2 July 1, 2025 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 Department’s June 9th Responses In its first June 9, 2025 response, the Department states that “there is no written report to send you,” and later the same day confirmed “there are no additional written reports to provide you.” 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Podszus contends that he is “at a loss to understand why there is no written report of the second complaint.” Further, he argues the following: The second complaint had to have been made sometime between January 10, 2023, namely the date of the initial complaint, a complaint that generated report #23-14-OF; and April 10, 2025, namely, the date of the letter by [the Department] that denied me access to report #23-14-OF, based on my request for the report on April 8, 2025. In a telephone conversation with this office on June 17, 2025, the Department confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to the request. Where the Department confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Mr. Podszus’ request, I find that the Department has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Podszus 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).

Chief Thomas Calouro SPR25/1720 Page 3 July 1, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: W. William Podszus