David Chritson v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20252935)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 21, 2025 SPR25/2935 David Shapiro, Esq. Deputy City Solicitor City of Somerville – Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Shapiro: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 10, 2024, Mr. Chritson requested “records made or received by SPD’s [named individual] and related to [himself], from May 1, 2021 through Dec. 31, 2023.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject ofs previous appeal. See SPR25/0613 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 17, 2025) and SPR25/1091 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 5, 2025). In my May 5th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims for redacting the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law, and I ordered the City to clarify whether it possessed additional records responsive to the request. Subsequently, the City responded on October 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2935, 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. 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

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/2935 Page 2 October 21, 2025 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 October 3rd Response In its October 3, 2025 response, the City provides numerous records in redacted form, and cites Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law for redacting the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), (f). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson contends that “the City failed to identify and provide all existing records responsive to my request. I request that the Supervisor of Records order the City to comply.” Based on Mr. Chritson’s appeal petition, I understand he claims only that the City possesses additional records responsive to his request, and does not object to the redactions made to the records he has received. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). In an email to this office on October 21, 2025, the City confirmed “that the City has no additional records responsive to Mr. Chritson’s request.” In this case, where the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Chritson’s request, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this request.

David Shapiro, Esq. SPR25/2935 Page 3 October 21, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Chritson is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson