Jeremy Theerman v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20253552)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 16, 2025 SPR25/3552 Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. City Solicitor City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Attorney Kalkounis: I have received the petition of Jeremy Theerman appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 18, 2025, Mr. Theerman requested, “... the pawn store inventory reports from the above pawn shop for the last two months, so from July 18, 2025 through today’s date.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3249 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 18, 2025). In my November 18th determination, I ordered the City to clarify whether additional records exist. The City responded to Mr. Theerman on December 2, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Theerman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3552, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response on December 2, 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. Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of 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

Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3552 Page 2 December 16, 2025 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Theerman contends: NESPIN indicates on its website that any information reported to it remains the property of the reporting agency, in this case the City of Worcester, and any FOIA request would be directed to the submitting agency. (FAQ No. 16) It seems obvious that the City retains custody and control of the requested documents and should not be permitted to avoid its public records obligations by outsourcing that responsibility to a third-party, especially when that third-party is specifically stating that the City retains ownership of the records. As a member of the public I have no access to the NESPIN system or records, but the City does and they should provide the records requested because they are able to and required by law to do so. The City’s December 2nd Response On December 2, 2025, the City clarified, “[t]he City does not keep inventory reports on any pawn shop in the city. Pawn shops are required to keep and submit inventory reports, but they report them to an organization known as NESPIN (New England State Police Information Network). The City does not compile or keep these records.” No Duty to Create Records Please be advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Further, the duty to comply with requests for records extends to identifying the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii).

Alexandra Kalkounis, Esq. SPR25/3552 Page 3 December 16, 2025 In a supplemental response on December 2, 2025, the City confirmed, “[t]his City does not create or possess these records.” Where the City has confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Theerman’s request, and has identified the agency that may be in possession of the records sought, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Theerman 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: Jeremy Theerman