David Chritson v. Somerville, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20253108)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 31, 2025 SPR25/3108 Cynthia Amara, Esq. City Solicitor City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue, City Hall Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Attorney Amara: 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 October 10, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested the following: [A]ll existing records associated with the investigations and cases of the Somerville Department of Racial and Social Justice (“RSJ”) that involve [an identified individual]—including records in physical, electronic, or any other format—from August 5, 2022 to December 31, 2022, that are in the possession, custody, or control of RSJ, SPD, and/or the City. The City responded on October 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3108, 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 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

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3108 Page 2 October 31, 2025 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 22nd Response In its October 22, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of Mr. Chritson’s request and stated: Please be advised that due to the magnitude of your request and the resources required to provide a complete response, the City will provide you with a supplemental response. The City will provide you with the public records sought within 25 business days from the date of the receipt of your request, in accordance with G.L. c. 66, §10(b)(vi). The City has identified records and intends to produce same, and may redact or withhold records if any exemptions are identified under the Massachusetts Public Records Law or any other statutes. Any exemptions will be set out in the City’s supplemental response to you. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson contends that “[t]he City’s withholding of the entire responsive records, and its failure to release any segregable portions thereof within the allotted 10 business days, violated the public’s right to prompt access.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) Pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi), a records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided that, 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. Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, it is unclear the basis of Mr. Chritson’s appeal. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A (a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Chritson in his appeal petition, I

Cynthia Amara, Esq. SPR25/3108 Page 3 October 31, 2025 am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Mr. Chritson receives the response, or if the City fails to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, the requestor may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson