Luke Sudarsky v. Martha's Vineyard Airport (SPR 20252945)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 22, 2025 SPR25/2945 Geoff Freeman Director Martha’s Vineyard Airport 71 Airport Road Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 Dear Director Freeman: I have received the petition of Luke Sudarsky appealing the response of the Martha’s Vineyard Airport (Airport) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 16, 2025, Mr. Sudarsky requested, “copies from prior to 1990 of the airport rules and regulations[.]” The Airport responded on October 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Airport’s response, Mr. Sudarsky petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2945, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Airport provided a supplemental response to this office and Mr. Sudarsky in an email dated October 10, 2025. 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. 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

Geoff Freeman SPR25/2945 Page 2 October 22, 2025 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. Current Appeal In his October 8, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Sudarsky contends, “[t]he airport is required by MGL to have rules and regulations pertaining to airport use.” The Airport October 6th and October 10th Responses In its October 6, 2025 response, a representative for the Airport stated, “I could not find files that you asked for. . . .” In its supplemental October 10, 2025 response, an Airport representative confirmed that the Airport does not possess responsive records to Mr. Sudarsky’s request. They advised, “Mr. Sudarsky’s request . . . [seeks] copies of the rules and regulations of the [Airport] . . . in effect prior to 1990, more than 35 years ago.” The Airport representative additionally stated, “[w]hen I received the request, I undertook a diligent search of the MVAC’s records, but I was unable to find any rules and regulations from that time period.” Records in Existence; Records Management Please note that 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). 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). Where the Airport has explained that after a diligent search it did not find records responsive to “the airport rules and regulations” “from prior to 1990[,]” the Airport must explain whether the responsive records existed and were destroyed, or whether the records did not initially exist. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii), (b)(ii). If records were destroyed, I find that the Airport must demonstrate whether it followed proper records retention protocol. The Airport must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Airport is ordered to provide Mr. Sudarsky with a response to his request 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.

Geoff Freeman SPR25/2945 Page 3 October 22, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Luke Sudarsky