Mason Kortz v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20253577)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 17, 2025 SPR25/3577 Seah Levy Records Access Officer City of Cambridge, Law Department 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Mason Kortz, on behalf of The Black Response Cambridge, appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 11, 2025, Mr. Kortz requested: As described in full below, this request (the “Documentation Request”) seeks records related to use of ShotSpotter and other SoundThinking technologies held by the City of Cambridge. [1] All Agreements between the City and SoundThinking. [2] All Data Sharing Agreements: [a] Between the City and the Massachusetts State Police regarding the Commonwealth Fusion Center; [b] Between the City and any federal agency regarding the Boston Regional Intelligence Center; and [c] Between the City and any other party regarding data acquired from or processed using a SoundThinking Product. [3] All Electronic Communications: [a] Between the City and SoundThinking; and [b] Between the City and any other government agency regarding the financing or acquisition of a SoundThinking Product. [c] Between the City and any other party regarding the deployment, use, or deprecation of a SoundThinking Product. [4] All manuals, handbooks, procedures, or documents describing processes for collecting, using, deleting, or sharing data using a SoundThinking Product. [5] All council minutes, memos, and staff reports discussing a SoundThinking 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 SPR25/3577 Page 2 December 17, 2025 Product. [6] All promotional, training, or evaluation materials provided to the City by SoundThinking. On September 23, 2025, the City provided a response. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Kortz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3577, 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. Att’y 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 September 23rd Response On September 23, 2025, the City provided Mr. Kortz with a response, stating, “ShotSpotter services are provided to the City of Cambridge through the Metro Boston Homeland Security Region. Boston’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is the primary contact for this collaboration and manages the requested records.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Kortz contends: Counsel responded to Ms. Levy on September 29, 2025, and ask [sic] her to clarify whether the City has never received copies of the requested records or if the City has received copies of some or all of the records, but considers them exempt because they originated with Boston OEM. Counsel followed up by email to Ms. Levy on October 24, 2025, and again on November 10, 2025, but to date has not received a response. Accordingly, The Black Response is treating the September 23, 2025, Response as a complete denial.

Seah Levy SPR25/3577 Page 3 December 17, 2025 … While the Response is effectively a complete denial [sic] the Request, it fails [sic] specify any exemptions. Instead, the Response simply directs the requester to file a new request with OEM, because it is the “primary contact” that “manages the requested records.” … To the extent the City’s position is that it has no obligation to produce the requested records because they originated with OEM, that position is incorrect…. Finally, if the City if [sic] fact does not have access to the requested records, it should have said so clearly in its Response…. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control The City is 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). Based on the information provided in Mr. Kortz’s appeal petition, in conjunction with the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Kortz’s request. If the City does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Kortz 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. Kortz may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Seah Levy SPR25/3577 Page 4 December 17, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Mason Kortz