Alec Ferretti v. Springfield, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20252649)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2025 SPR25/2649 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 and September 8, 2025, assigning the request reference number 25-2966. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2649, was opened as a result. Subsequently, I learned the City provided a supplemental response on September 10, 2025. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 11, 2025). In my September 11th determination, I found the City had not met its burden to withhold the responsive record under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and ordered it to provide Mr. Ferretti with a further response to the request. 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2649 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 27th, September 8th, 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 September 8, 2025 response, the City confirmed it had located the responsive birth certificate and provided instructions on how to request vital records and submit payment. 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…” Issues Addressed in Separate Appeal It is my understanding that this request and the issues raised in Mr. Ferretti’s appeal concerning the City’s responses were addressed in SPR25/2550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 11, 2025), in which I ordered the City to provide Mr. Ferretti with a further response to the request within ten business days. Once the City provides a further response, Mr. Ferretti may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response to SPR25/2550 within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/2649 Page 3 September 11, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alec Ferretti