Alec Ferretti v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20252906)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 10, 2025 SPR25/2906 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 320 Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Alec Ferretti appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to two (2) 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: Request 1 “[A] scan of the marriage intention of [two identified individuals]… who were married on Oct 28 1947 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number P251635- 080725. Request 2 “[A] scan of the marriage intention of [two identified individuals]… who were married on Jun 10 1945 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” It is my understanding that the City assigned this request reference number P251634- 080725. Previous Appeals These requests were the subjects of previous appeals. See SPR25/2555; SPR25/2556 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 11, 2025). In my September 11th determination, I found that the City had not met its burden of specificity to withhold the 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 SPR25/2906 Page 2 October 10, 2025 responsive records. The City responded on September 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2906, 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 September 29th Response In its September 29, 2025 response, the City cited G. L. c. 46, §§ 19 and 19C, as well as Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Ferretti stated, “[t]he City has brought forth no new persuasive arguments.” 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

Seah Levy SPR25/2906 Page 3 October 10, 2025 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 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, § 19 In its response, the City cited G. L. c. 46, § 19, which provides in pertinent part: The record of the town clerk relative to a birth, marriage or death shall be prima facie evidence of the facts recorded, but nothing contained in the record of a death which has reference to the question of liability for causing the death shall be admissible in evidence. A certificate of such a record, signed by the town clerk or assistant clerk, or a certificate of the copy of the record relative to a birth, marriage or death required to be kept in the department of public health, signed by the commissioner of public health or the registrar of vital records and statistics, shall be admissible as evidence of such record… G. L. c. 46, § 19. G. L. c. 46, § 19C The City also cited G. L. c. 46, § 19C, which provides: The state registrar shall use the seal of the department of public health for the purpose of authenticating copies of birth, marriage and death records, and copies of such records when certified by him and authenticated by said seal, shall be evidence like the originals. G. L. c. 46, § 19C.

Seah Levy SPR25/2906 Page 4 October 10, 2025 Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 Further, the City cited Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, which provides in pertinent part: …When the state registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a vital record may have been falsely made, altered, forged, counterfeited or procured through fraud or misrepresentation or improper use of the signature or facsimile of the signature or signature stamp of a town clerk or the state registrar, the state registrar shall: (i) take reasonable administrative action to prevent and control fraud or improper use of the record, including instructions to all vital records clerks who have custody of the record to limit, restrict or stop issuing certified copies or making the record available for examination notwithstanding any general or special laws to the contrary; and (ii) notify appropriate law enforcement authorities…. Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010. Under Exemption (a), the City argued: Copies of individual vital records are exempt from disclosure as public records. Specifically, G.L. c. 46, § 19 and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 require the seal of the Department of Public Health and security measures on paper copies to minimize the risk of fraudulent or improper use of such records… While the state allows cities and towns access to these records, only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has custodial authority over these records… If an individual requests a copy of a marriage certificate, it is not being denied; it has to be certified, consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth. Cities and towns are political subdivisions of the Commonwealth; as such, the statutory rules governing the production of Vital Records in the Commonwealth, held by the Commonwealth, apply to cities and towns when producing the Commonwealth’s records. Although the City cites G. L. c. 46, §§ 19 and 19C, as well as Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, it is unclear from the City’s response how the statutes specifically or by necessary implication permit it to withhold the requested records from disclosure. 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. Consequently, I find the City has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ferretti with a response to the 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.

Seah Levy SPR25/2906 Page 5 October 10, 2025 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