John Hawkinson v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20253098)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 30, 2025 SPR25/3098 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of John Hawkinson appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 7, 2025, Mr. Hawkinson requested “the FY26 Assessor’s valuation for all map/lots within the City for which valuations are available.” The City responded on October 14, 2025 and October 20, 2025, assigning the request reference number P252154-100725. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Hawkinson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3098, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response on October 24, 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

Seah Levy SPR25/3098 Page 2 October 30, 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. The City’s October 14th and October 20th Responses In its October 14, 2025 response, following correspondence between Mr. Hawkinson and the City, the City stated, “Assessing is reviewing your public records request.” In its October 20, 2025 response, the City stated, “[u]nfortunately, the data you requested will not be available. The tax rate setting process has not yet been completed. The tax rate has not been approved by the Commissioner of Revenue.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Hawkinson argued that the City’s response “is not a proper denial under the statutory scheme and is impermissibly vague – it does not make clear whether the City is alleging it lacks the data or if the City is alleging the data is in its possession and is exempt from disclosure.” In a telephone conversation with this office on October 23, 2025, the City confirmed that it does not yet possess the records responsive to the request, but would be able to provide them once they became available. In a supplemental response on October 24, 2025, the City clarified: The Requester has asked for a dataset that does not yet exist, and as a result, a “No Records” response was sent… The City does plan to release this dataset in the future, but creating the dataset at this time is not possible… Therefore, the City did not issue a “denial” response to the request, but rather a “No Records” response. The City does not possess documentation responsive to your request. On October 24, 2025, regarding the City’s supplemental response, Mr. Hawkinson argued the following: I construe [the City’s response] as an affirmative denial of the underlying request… Now that I now understand the purported basis for the City’s denial, it makes no sense… [E]ven if the FY26 valuations are subject to some further “review,” the present, interim, preliminary, or estimated valuations are still subject to disclosure under the public records law and must be produced. The City has not produced them and it has not explained why… The City may not disclose the sum of all those values but then claim that the individual values that are summed “do not yet exist.”

Seah Levy SPR25/3098 Page 3 October 30, 2025 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee 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). Further, 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). Conclusion Given that the City has confirmed that it does not currently possess any records responsive to Mr. Hawkinson’s request, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Hawkinson 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 of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Hawkinson