Alec Ferretti v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20252550)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2550 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Alec Ferretti appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 26, 2025, Mr. Ferretti requested, “…scans of the birth certificate / return of birth for [an identified individual], born 21 Dec 1922.” On August 27, 2025, Mr. Ferretti clarified that his request was for “an uncertified scan, not a certified copy.” The City responded on August 27, 2025, assigning the request reference number 25-2966. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2550, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on September 10, 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. 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2550 Page 2 September 11, 2025 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 27th and September 10th Responses In its August 27, 2025 response, the City cited G. L. c. 46, §§ 27 and 29, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive record. In addition, the City stated, “[t]he Clerk’s Office charges $20 when certifying records in person or by mail. The Clerk’s Office is not authorized to release uncertified copies of vital records.” In its supplemental response on September 10, 2025, the City reiterated its initial response and stated, “[t]he City Clerk cannot release vital records without attesting to their copies… The requestor has not offered any information in his appeal to justify the City violating the requirement in state law that the birth certificate must be attested to by the Clerk.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Ferretti stated, “…uncertified copies of vital records are subject to the Public Records Law…” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2550 Page 3 September 11, 2025 individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. G. L. c. 46, §§ 27 and 29 In its August 27, 2025 response, the City cited G. L. c. 46, § 27, which provides: A city or town clerk or registrar refusing or neglecting to perform any duty required of him under this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars. Fines recovered for violation of section eighteen shall be to the use of the commonwealth. G. L. c. 46, § 27. Additionally, the City cited G. L. c. 46, § 29, which provides: Town clerks or registrars shall attest their copies of the record of births, marriages or deaths with the official seal of the town. G. L. c. 46, § 29. In its responses, the City recited the language of Exemption (a) and G. L. c. 46, §§ 27 and 29 to deny providing an uncertified scan of the responsive record. Based on the City’s responses, I find the City has not met its burden to withhold the responsive record pursuant to G. L. c. 46, §§ 27 and 29 as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Where G. L. c. 46, § 27 concerns fines for city and town clerks and registrars neglecting to perform any duties under G. L. c. 46, and G. L. c. 46, § 29 concerns town clerks or registrars’ duty to attest their copies of the record of births, marriages or deaths with the official seal of the town, it is unclear how G. L. c. 46, §§ 27 and 29 specifically or by necessary implication prohibit the City from providing an uncertified scan of the responsive record. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, a statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ferretti 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. Ferretti may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2550 Page 4 September 11, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alec Ferretti