Alec Ferretti v. Arlington, Town of - Clerk's Office (SPR 20253242)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 17, 2025 SPR25/3242 Christine Bongiorno Deputy Town Manager – Operations Town of Arlington 730 Massachusetts Avenue Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Ms. Bongiorno: I have received the petition of Alec Ferretti appealing the response of the Town of Arlington (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 27, 2025, Mr. Ferretti requested scans of death certificates for four identified individuals. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2648 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 15, 2025). In my September 15th determination, I found that the Town had not met its burden of specificity to withhold the responsive records. The Town responded on September 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3242, 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

Christine Bongiorno SPR25/3242 Page 2 November 17, 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 Town’s September 23rd Response In its September 23, 2025 response, the Town cited Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Ferretti argued that the Town “raised no new arguments and ha[s] continued to refuse to produce the records I requested.” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities.

Christine Bongiorno SPR25/3242 Page 3 November 17, 2025 G. L. c. 46, § 19A In its September 23, 2025 response, the Town cited G. L. c. 46, § 19A, which provides: Reproductions of certificates or records referred to in section nineteen by any person other than the town clerk, assistant clerk, commissioner of public health shall be prohibited, except that a register of deeds, register of probate or other county, state, municipal or federal official keeper of public records may, in the course of his official duties, reproduce such certificates or records as are required in his office. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. G. L. c. 46, § 19A. G. L. c. 46, § 19C The Town also cited G. L. c. 46, § 19C, which provides: The state registrar shall use the seal of the department of public health for the purpose of authenticating copies of birth, marriage and death records, and copies of such records when certified by him and authenticated by said seal, shall be evidence like the originals. G. L. c. 46, § 19C. Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 Further, the Town’s response relies on Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, which provides in pertinent part: …When the state registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a vital record may have been falsely made, altered, forged, counterfeited or procured through fraud or misrepresentation or improper use of the signature or facsimile of the signature or signature stamp of a town clerk or the state registrar, the state registrar shall: (i) take reasonable administrative action to prevent and control fraud or improper use of the record, including instructions to all vital records clerks who have custody of the record to limit, restrict or stop issuing certified copies or making the record available for examination notwithstanding any general or special laws to the contrary; and (ii) notify appropriate law enforcement authorities…. Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010.

Christine Bongiorno SPR25/3242 Page 4 November 17, 2025 Under Exemption (a), the Town argued: Vital records are exempt under the public records law… Town Clerks can only issue certified copies of vital records culled from a database created by the state Registrar. If vital records were intended to be managed under the public records law, it is unlikely that the legislature would pass a separate, special act establishing a process for producing certified copies of those records… [I]t is likely that the legislature intended for vital records to be controlled by statutes other than the public records law; otherwise, the express language of the aforementioned statutes would be moot… [C]hapter 46 restricts the reproduction of vital records to certain government officials, including the Town Clerk… In sum, the Town asserts that the public records law does not govern the disclosure of vital records and that such records sought by Mr. Ferretti may be provided to him only in a certified manner. Although the Town cites the statutory scheme of G. L. c. 46 and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, it is unclear from the Town’s response how the statutes specifically or by necessary implication permit it to withhold the requested records from disclosure. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, a statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, I find the Town has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide Mr. Ferretti 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. Ferretti may appeal the substantive nature of the Town’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alec Ferretti Michael C. Cunningham, Esq. Jaclyn Munson, Esq.