Barbara Dewsnap v. Saugus, Town of - Town Manager (SPR 20253651)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 23, 2025 SPR25/3651 Jeannie Meredith Records Access Officer Town of Saugus 289 Central Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Ms. Meredith: I have received the petition of Barbara Dewsnap appealing the response of the Town of Saugus (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 11, 2025, Ms. Dewsnap requested, “…a full and complete copy of the list of location names and address of the open space areas in the Town of Saugus explored by the Saugus Dog Park Committee during its site location analysis for a suitable and feasible location for a proposed dog park in the Town of Saugus….” On November 18, 2025, the Town provided a response to this request. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Ms. Dewsnap petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3651, 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. 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

Jeannie Meredith SPR25/3651 Page 2 December 23, 2025 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 November 18th Response In its November 18, 2025 response, the Town stated, “…there are no responsive records at this time to your request.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Dewsnap contends: …the ROA [sic] does not provide any reason why there is no responsive records at this time for my stated request…it is my understanding that the Saugus Dog Park Committee conducted the necessary site location analysis during its exploration of open space areas to determine their suitability and feasibility relating to the location for the proposed dog park development project. Therefore, the site location analysis should be readily accessible and available from the Town of Saugus. … At this time, I would appreciate any assistance you are able to provide in my obtaining the herein stated site location analysis conducted and completed by the Saugus Dog Park Committee or a written explanation stating why the requested item [sic] are not available. No Duty to Create Records or Answer Questions 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). In a telephone conversation between the Town and this office on December 12, 2025, the Town confirmed that it does not possess responsive records. Conclusion Where the Town has confirmed it does not possess records responsive to Ms. Dewsnap’s request, has no duty to create records responsive to the request, and has no duty to answer questions, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Dewsnap is not satisfied

Jeannie Meredith SPR25/3651 Page 3 December 23, 2025 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, § 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Barbara Dewsnap