Yisbert Lara v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20253443)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 5, 2025 SPR25/3443 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Yisbert Lara appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 17, 2025, Mr. Lara requested, “… a complete copy of any and all procedures, protocols, rules, regulations, policies, memos, orders etc[.] for the Springfield Police Department Evidence Room for the years of 2014-2015.” Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2334 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 18, 2025). In my August 18th determination, I ordered the City to provide Mr. Lara with a response in accordance with the Public Records Law. The City responded on August 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Lara petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3443, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the City provided an additional response on December 1, 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. 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3443 Page 2 December 5, 2025 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. See 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 August 28th Response On August 28, 2025, the City stated, “[e]nclosed you will find copies of the Rules for the Springfield Police Department in response to your public records request. The Rules cover the policies you requested for rules covering the collection and holding of evidence. Rules #1 through #40 are enclosed.” Current Appeal In his November 18, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Lara stated the following: First, [the City] provided a lot of documents not requested in my PRR; [s]econd, within those documents I found not Rules specifically pertaining to the “Evidence Room” as requested. Even [th]ough [the City] stated in its cover letter that “the rules cover the policies you requested…” Third, the rules provided to me didn’t have any information as to what year these rules were in effect, it cannot be determine[d]…Fourth, beside[s] the unrequested rules provided to me, the [City] did not provide any procedures, protocols, regulations, policies, memos, or orders regarding SPD[’s] “Evidence Room,” as requested. Neither, specify in its letter whether any categories of records or portions of the missing records that the agency intent to withhold are exempt from disclosure, nor provided the reasons and exemptions that apply… In a December 1, 2025 mailed correspondence to this office and Mr. Lara, the City provided a complete copy of the “Rules #1 through #40,” stating, “[t]he Rules cover the policies you requested for rules covering the collection and holding of evidence.” A copy of the rules was previously provided to Mr. Lara on August 28, 2025. In a December 5, 2025 email communication to this office, the City stated, “[w]e sent Mr. Lara all of the records forwarded to us by the Police Department. They responded to the request for ‘procedures or policies governing evidence of the ‘Evidence Room’ for 2024-2015.’” 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR25/3443 Page 3 December 5, 2025 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). 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 Where the City has stated that it does not possess additional responsive records and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Lara 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Yisbert Lara