Jonathan Gerhardson v. Chicopee, Town of - Housing Authority (SPR 20252432)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 29, 2025 SPR25/2432 Betsy Partyka-Narey Executive Director Chicopee Housing Authority 128 Meetinghouse Road Chicopee, MA 01013 Dear Ms. Partyka-Narey: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson appealing the response of the Chicopee Housing Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 22, 2025, Mr. Gerhardson requested: [T]he following for the 90-day period preceding the date this request is fulfilled: [1] A complete export of all Site Logs from Avigilon Unity Video (ACC). Logs should be exported in .csv format and include all data fields, including, but not limited to: Event Message, Time, Type, Server Name, Device Name, and Client (Machine Name and IP Address). This includes Server Events, Device Events, Access Events, and all User Events. [2] A complete export of the Audit Log Report from Avigilon Unity Access (ACM) in .csv format, including all available data fields, specifically “Operator” and the “Before” and “After” values. [3] A complete export of the Transaction Report from Avigilon Unity Access (ACM) in .csv format, detailing physical access events … [4] A complete export of all Audit Logs (Configuration Logs) in JSON format. [5] A complete export of all Viewer Logs in JSON format. [6] A complete export of the Activity Log from the Alta Access system. [7] If applicable, a complete export of the DMP Audit Log … [8] A copy of the agency’s formal Log Management Policy for its physical security systems. [9] Any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for investigating incidents by reviewing security system logs. [10] Records sufficient to show the current Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) configuration. 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

Betsy Partyka-Narey SPR25/2432 Page 2 August 29, 2025 [11] Records sufficient to show the configured data retention policies within the platform itself. [12] For on-premise Unity systems, records sufficient to show the system’s backup configuration and schedules. [13] A complete copy of any and all contracts, agreements, amendments, statements of work, and related purchasing documentation with Axon Enterprise, Inc., and/or Fusus from the period of June 1, 2024, to the date this request is processed. This includes, but is not limited to, the primary agreement for the implementation or use of their real-time crime center or video-sharing platform. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1983 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 18, 2025). In my July 18th determination, I found that the Authority must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the assessed fee is consistent with the Public Records Law. The Authority responded on July 31, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2432, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal the Authority provided a supplemental response on August 28, 2025. 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 Authority’s July 31st Response In its July 31, 2025 response, the Authority stated that it possessed no records responsive to Items 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the request. The Authority assessed a fee of $100.00 to

Betsy Partyka-Narey SPR25/2432 Page 3 August 29, 2025 produce records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the request. Subsequently, Mr. Gerhardson paid the assessed fee and the Authority produced responsive records. Current Appeal In his August 17, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Gerhardson contended that the Authority possessed additional records responsive to his request and that its assessed fee of $100.00 was unreasonable. In its August 28, 2025 response, the Authority reiterated that it had provided all responsive records in its possession, and sought clarification regarding Mr. Gerhardson’s assertion that additional records existed. In an August 29, 2025 telephone conversation with this office, the Authority stated that it intended to coordinate with the Chicopee Police Department to conduct a further search for responsive records. Fee Waiver G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). In this case, where it appears Mr. Gerhardson has paid a fee and the Authority has provided responsive records, I am unable to assist Mr. Gerhardson in regard to this aspect of his appeal petition. Possession, Custody, or Control Based on Mr. Gerhardson’s petition and the Authority’s responses, it is unclear whether the Authority possesses additional records responsive to the request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or

Betsy Partyka-Narey SPR25/2432 Page 4 August 29, 2025 control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Consequently, the Authority must clarify whether it possesses additional responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Mr. Gerhardson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Gerhardson may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Gerhardson