Terry Winchester v. Chelsea, City of (SPR 20252915)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 17, 2025 SPR25/2915 Jessica C. Morales Paralegal Law Department City of Chelsea 500 Broadway Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Dear Ms. Morales: I have received the petition of Terry Winchester appealing the nonresponse of the City of Chelsea (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 8, 2025, Mr. Winchester requested “a certified abutters list for the property located at [a specific address] … All direct abutters to Map 35, Lot 1; All abutters to abutters within 300 feet of the property lines … All owners of land directly opposite the property on any public or private way, including [a specific address][.]” The City responded on September 10 and September 15, 2025. Subsequently, on September 26, 2025, Mr. Winchester queried: [1] Direct abutters – Properties such as [three specific addresses] appear, based on the City’s tax roll, as abutting [a specific address]. Can you please confirm why these owners were not included? [2] Owners opposite Commandants Way – I specifically noted in my original request that Commandants Way is a private way to my knowledge. From what I understand, the Admirals Hill Owners Association owns and maintains this roadway. Can you confirm whether AHOA and other parcels directly opposite Commandants Way were considered, and if not, why they were excluded? [3] List content – The attached document included “UNKNOWN” for [a specific address] and listed the subject parcel itself ([a specific address]). Can you confirm whether these are standard inclusions on a certified abutters list, and if so, under what authority? [4] Certification – [a] What is the “as of” date of the tax roll used? [b] Who in the Assessor’s office reviewed and certified the list? [c] On what date was the certification made? [5] Supporting materials – Could you please provide: 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

Jessica C. Morales SPR25/2915 Page 2 October 17, 2025 [a] The signed certification block from the Assessor’s office (with name and title of the certifying official); and [b] The locus map showing all parcels included within 300 feet. Claiming to have received no further response from the City, Mr. Winchester petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2915, 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. Att’y 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 10th and September 15th Responses In its September 10, 2025 response, the City stated “[w]e have received your Public Records Request for the City of Chelsea. This record is in process of being assigned to the appropriate department.” In its September 15, 2025 response, the City provided a responsive record. Subsequently, on September 26, 2025, Mr. Winchester posed four questions related to the contents and certification of the responsive record and sought “supporting materials” related to the record. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Winchester stated that he had received no further response from the City.

Jessica C. Morales SPR25/2915 Page 3 October 17, 2025 Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 Mr. Winchester is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends only 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). Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Where Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Mr. Winchester’s request constitute a list of questions, I find that the City has no duty under the Public Records Law to answer such questions. Item 5 G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Winchester’s request was submitted on September 26, 2025, and the City has not provided records responsive to Item 5, I find the City has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the City must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the City must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Winchester 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. Winchester may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Jessica C. Morales SPR25/2915 Page 4 October 17, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Terry Winchester