Alec Ferretti v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20252556)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2555; SPR25/2556 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petitions of Alec Ferretti appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 7, 2025, in two separate requests, Mr. Ferretti sought the following: SPR25/2555 “[A] scan of the marriage intention of [two identified individuals] . . . who were married on Oct 28 1947 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” SPR25/2556 “[A] scan of the marriage intention of [two identified individuals] . . . who were married on Jun 10 1945 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” The City provided responses to both requests on August 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office and these appeals, SPR25/2555 and SPR25/2556, were 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). 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

Seah Levy SPR25/2555; SPR25/2556 Page 2 September 11, 2025 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 City’s August 7th Responses In its August 7, 2025 responses to both requests, the City stated, “[m]arriage Licenses are Vital Records, which may be obtained from the City Clerk’s office for a fee of $15.” The City additionally advised, “[p]lease find information on how to order a Marriage License Certificate online here” and provided a link to a specific page of the City’s website. Current Appeal In both of his August 27, 2025, appeal petitions, Mr. Ferretti indicates that he “requested two marriage intentions, which were denied.” He further contends, “vital records, in uncertified form . . . [are] subject to the Public Records Law.” Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption in order to withhold or redact records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). In this case, the City’ response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The City must either provide the responsive records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). 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). The City must clarify this matter.

Seah Levy SPR25/2555; SPR25/2556 Page 3 September 11, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ferretti with a response to his requests, 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alec Ferretti