Alec Ferretti v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Solicitor (SPR 20253257)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 19, 2025 SPR25/3257 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petitions of Alec Ferretti appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 7, 2025, in two separate requests, Mr. Ferretti sought the following: Request 1 “[A] scan of the marriage intention of [two identified individuals] . . . who were married on Oct 28 1947 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” Request 2 “[A] scan of the marriage intention of [two identified individuals] . . . who were married on Jun 10 1945 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.” Previous Appeals These requests were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2555; SPR25/2556 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 11, 2025) and SPR25/2906 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 10, 2025). In my October 10th determination, I found that the City did not meet its burden to withhold records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Specifically, I noted that it was unclear from the City’s response how G. L. c. 46, §§ 19 and 19C and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, operating through Exemption (a), specifically or by necessary implication permit the City to withhold the requested records from disclosure. Subsequently, the City provided a response to both requests on November 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3257, was opened as a result. 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 SPR25/3257 Page 2 November 19, 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. 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 November 5th Response In its previous September 29, 2025 response, the City cited G. L. c. 46, §§ 19 and 19C, as well as Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records. In support of its claims, the City advised, “[i]f an individual requests a copy of a marriage certificate, it is not being denied; it has to be certified, consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth.” The City further contended, “[c]ities and towns are political subdivisions of the Commonwealth; as such, [G.L. c. 46, § 19 and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010] governing the production of Vital Records in the Commonwealth, held by the Commonwealth, apply to cities and towns when producing the Commonwealth’s records.” In its November 5, 2025 response, the City cited G. L. c. 262, § 34(67) and G. L. c. 46, § 33, operating through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records and support its position that “the City will produce the requested records upon payment of $15.00 per-copy fee.” The City additionally noted, “[o]n or about November 3, 2025, [the] Registry of Vital Records and Statistics Amendment Unit advised the City that the City Clerk cannot provide non-certified copies of a marriage intention.” Current Appeal In his November 5, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Ferretti objects to the City’s response and states, “[the City has] brought forth no novel arguments, and instead insist that . . . demanding that they charge me for certified records . . . constitutes an exemption to the public records law.”

Seah Levy SPR25/3257 Page 3 November 19, 2025 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. G. L. c. 262, § 34(67) In its response, the City cited G. L. c. 262, § 34(67), which provides in pertinent part: Unless otherwise established in a town by town meeting action and in a city by city council action; and in a town with no town meeting by town council action, by adoption of appropriate bylaws and ordinances to set such fees, the fees of city and town clerks shall be as follows: . . . For copying any manuscript or record pertaining to a birth, marriage or death, two dollars per page. G. L. c. 262, § 34(67). G. L. c. 46, § 33 The City additionally cited G. L. c. 46, § 33, which provides: The state registrar shall establish, maintain and operate a centralized, automated database for the system of vital records and statistics, subject to appropriation. The state registrar shall make such automated database available to town clerks

Seah Levy SPR25/3257 Page 4 November 19, 2025 who shall use it to (i) record all births and deaths by city or town of occurrence and all marriages by city or town that issued the license; and (ii) issue certified copies of vital records. . . . G. L. c. 46, § 33. In its response, under Exemption (a), the City argued the following: Under M.G.L. c. 262 §34, the City is entitled to assess fees for copying any record pertaining to a birth, marriage, or death. Pursuant to [City Municipal Code] §2.24.050, the City charges $15.00 to provide certified copies of marriage, birth, and death records. The list notes them as certificates, but in practice, the fees also apply to records. Cambridge, MA Code 2.24.050 (amend March 24, 2025). . . . Therefore, before providing [the requestor] with any documents in response to their public records request, the City hereby provides [the requestor] with the . . . cost for copying associated with responding to [the] request. The City anticipates the cost will be $30.00 for the two records requested. . . . Under G. L. c. 46, § 33, the statute limits the availability of the database to town clerks. The Requestor is not one of the enumerated individuals entitled to access these documents, as the Requestor is not the town clerk. Furthermore, the town clerk only issues certified copies of vital records. Based on the City’s response, I find the City has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records pursuant to G. L. c. 262, § 34(67) or G. L. c. 46, § 33 as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Where Mr. Ferretti’s requests seek copies of marriage intentions and G. L. c. 262, § 34(67) enumerates fees that city and town clerks may assess “for copying any manuscript or record pertaining to a birth, marriage or death[,]” it is unclear how G. L. c. 262, § 34(67) specifically or by necessary implication prohibits the City’s disclosure of the requested records. Moreover, where G. L. c. 46, § 33 concerns the state registrar’s duty to establish, maintain, and operate a centralized database for vital records and statistics, it is also unclear how G. L. c. 46, § 33 specifically or by necessary implication prohibits the City’s disclosure of the requested records. The City is reminded 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, the City has not demonstrated how the statutes cited in its November 5, 2025 response specifically or by necessary implication permit it to withhold the requested records from disclosure. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ferretti with a response to his requests, 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.

Seah Levy SPR25/3257 Page 5 November 19, 2025 Ferretti may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alec Ferretti