Joe Murphy v. Quincy, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252641)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 17, 2025 SPR25/2641 Brenda G. Fernandez Public Records Coordinator City of Quincy 1305 Hancock Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Fernandez: I have received the petition of Joe Murphy appealing the response of the City of Quincy (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 24, 2025, Mr. Murphy requested “the 2013 ballot or ballot text” as well as “information on the process that got that question onto the ballot” On July 25, 2025, Mr. Murphy modified his request and stated, “I understand that actual ballots may be destroyed after 30 days under Massachusetts law. However, I am requesting records that…are required to be retained longer or permanently, and that pertain to the 2013 municipal ballot question that changed the mayoral term from two to four years…” Mr. Murphy clarified that he was specifically seeking the following: [1] The text of the 2013 ballot question regarding the mayoral term-i.e. the exact wording that appeared on the ballot and/or in any explanatory voter information or summary presented to residents. [2] Certification of election results for that ballot question, including the official yes/no vote counts and certification from the City Clerk or Board of Registrars. [3] Any documentation of the process by which the question was placed on the ballot, including but not limited to: [a] petition materials summaries, or signature certification documents [;] [4] A determination of whether the petition fell under Section 39 or Section 40 of the city charter [;] [5] Any communication, analysis, or internal legal memoranda related to the categorization or legality of the petition [;] [6] Whether the City Council took any formal action or vote regarding the question (agendas, minutes, or meeting packets) [;] [7] Any record of a charter amendment filing or transmittal to the Secretary of 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

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/2641 Page 2 September 17, 2025 the Commonwealth following the passage of the ballot question [; and] [8] Can you explain why the mayoral term on the charter…makes no mention of the mayoral term being extended to four years? That document still shows a two year term for the mayor. The City responded on July 25, 2025; July 28, 2025 and September 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Mr. Murphy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2641, 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 City’s July 25th July 28th and September 3rd Responses In its July 25, 2025 response, the City stated, “the municipal record retention requirements are less than one year…for ballots and related election documents it is 30 days.” The City stated that for that reason, they considered the matter closed. On July 28, 2025, the City responded to Mr. Murphy’s modified request, stating “[w]e are currently processing your request and will respond in accordance with applicable public records laws.” On September 3, 2025, the City responded to Mr. Murphy, stating “[a]s noted on July 25, 2025, [the City] responded to your request and stated there are no records on file. This matter is closed.”

Brenda G. Fernandez SPR25/2641 Page 3 September 17, 2025 Current appeal In his September 8, 2025 appeal, Mr. Murphy states “[d]espite this clarification and a formal acknowledgment from the City Clerk’s office on July 28, stating that my request remained open and was being processed, the City Solicitor previously instructed that the request be closed on the grounds that ballots are no longer retained. My subsequent follow-ups on September 3 reiterated that my request was not for ballots, but for legally retained records that should still exist. Nonetheless, the City has declined to fulfill the request or provide any explanation regarding the absence of these records.” Based on Mr. Murphy’s claims, in conjunction with the City’s response, it is unclear if the Department possesses any records responsive to his request. 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). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the City must clarify whether any responsive records exist. If records were destroyed, I find that the City must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The City must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Murphy 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. Murphy 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: Joe Murphy