David Webb v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20252388)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 22, 2025 SPR25/2388 Janice E. Thompson, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received the petition of David Webb appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 14, 2025, Mr. Webb requested, “[a]ny email sent with the phrase “have met all requirements necessary for this matter to move forward in court” such as but not limited to the one sent by [an identified individual] Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 1:06 PM.” In his request, Mr. Webb stated, “…this is a duplicate of W046171-011124 filed 1/11/24, and further advised that on 1/29/24, a year and a half ago, [an identified individual] informed me he required more time to process this request…On 2/20/2024 at 5:16:54 PM I asked him if he had completed his search, and I have not received a response.” The City responded on August 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Webb petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2388, 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

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2388 Page 2 August 22, 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 City’s August 6th Response In its August 6, 2025 response, the City stated, “[u]nderstanding that you did not intend to request copies of records already in your possession such as the email you reference in your request, your prior request W046171-011124 had been previously closed out with the status ‘no records exist.’” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Webb stated, “[t]he city is unlawfully withholding… and refusing to clarify what records are available or what records are not in their possession, and unreasonably delaying access to the public in matters that are of public concern.” In a telephone conversation with this office on August 19, 2025, an attorney for the City confirmed that there are no records responsive to the request other than the referenced email already in Mr. Webb’s possession. 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). Further, 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). Conclusion Given that the City has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to the request, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Webb 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Janice E. Thompson, Esq. SPR25/2388 Page 3 August 22, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Webb Michael Vigneux