Laura H. Ortiz v. Lowell, City of - Police Department (SPR 20251860)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 7, 2025 SPR25/1860 Jacqueline Cook Records Access Officer Lowell Police Department 50 Arcand Drive Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Ms. Cook: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the Lowell 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 29, 2025, Ms. Ortiz requested the following: Copy of financial vendor invoice payment check records (regardless the electronic or other format) that showed the following invoice total payments or any individual payments and the overall total payments of made by the City of Lowell or the Lowell Police Department to the following ARPA grantees [sic]: LPD Equipment Upgrades and a copy of financial vendor invoice payment check records (including check(s) Invoice Date, Invoice Number, Description, Invoice Amount, signature of City of Lowell employee or Office of the Treasurer or Lowell Police Department, Vendor Number, Vendor Name, Check Number, Check Date and Check Amount etc) for: Service Vehicle project details $248,714 LPD Frontline Service Vehicle -PO Purchase Order (see attached) and referenced here and Radio System upgrades $69,782 LPD Emergency Response Radio System - PO 2 Purchase Order #2 (see attached) and referenced here and Mobile Surveillance Camera Systems $149,040 LPD Mobile Surveillance Purchase Order Purchase Order (see attached) and referenced here Timeline for records: 2021- 2025[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1687 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2025). In my June 16th determination, I found that the Department had provided Ms. Ortiz with a response on June 2, 2025. 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

Jacqueline Cook SPR25/1860 Page 2 July 7, 2025 The Department responded further on June 13 and June 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1860, 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 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 13th and June 17th Responses In its June 13, 2025 response, the Department provided Ms. Ortiz with copies of the responsive records. Subsequently on June 13, 2025, Ms. Ortiz notified the Department that she was unable to access the responsive records. In its June 17, 2025 response, the Department provided Ms. Ortiz with a second copy of the responsive records. The Department explained that its previous response was automatically encrypted by the Department’s computer system and its June 17th response had been compressed to avoid activating the encryption. Current Appeal In her June 25, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Ortiz contended that the Department had failed to provide all responsive records in its possession. In a telephone conversation with this office on July 3, 2025, the Department confirmed that Ms. Ortiz had been provided with all records responsive to her request.

Jacqueline Cook SPR25/1860 Page 3 July 7, 2025 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends only 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). Conclusion Given that all responsive records have been provided, and this office has no authority to compel the Department to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Ortiz 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: Laura Ortiz