Steve Gillis v. Methuen, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20253658)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 22, 2025 SPR25/3658 Anne Drouin City Clerk City of Methuen 41 Pleasant Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Ms. Drouin: I have received the petition of Steve Gillis appealing the response of the City of Methuen (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 3, 2025, Mr. Gillis requested “[t]he complete, itemized list and full inventory of all artifacts, antiques, furnishings, and other personal property contents that were included in the purchase of the Searles estate (or its associated property) by the City of Methuen using public funds.” The City assigned reference number 2025-485 to the request. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3579 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 11, 2025). In my December 11th determination, I closed SPR25/3579 in light of the City providing Mr. Gillis with a response dated November 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Gillis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3658, 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. 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

Anne Drouin SPR25/3658 Page 2 December 22, 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. 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 Response On December 8, 2025, the City explained, “[t]he City timely responded to Mr. Gillis on November 12, 2025, via its online system, see attached. However, due to a clerical error, the email went to a different email address. I have corrected this mistake and emailed Mr. Gillis the City’s response to both his AOL email account … as well as his Gmail account…, the email chain is attached. The City requests that the appeal be denied as Mr. Gillis has received the City’s response.” In the City’s November 12, 2025 response, the City provided responsive records and stated, “…please find attached the Insurance Appraisal that was commissioned by the Sisters of Presentation of Mary in 2020. It is the inventory reference document for the artifacts at the time of the purchase of the Estate by the City on November 12, 2024, and remains so. Also attached is the executed Purchase & Sale agreement for the purchase of the Estate.” Current Appeal In his December 11, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Gillis asserts: Where is Exhibit A? Where is the Insurance Appraisal that lists each artifact with images and values? The City keeps referring to “excepted artifacts,” yet never defines what that means. All I was given were a few written lines naming artifacts, but no Exhibit, no photographs, and no insurance appraisal. … And where is Exhibit B? The City referenced Exhibit B, yet nothing was ever provided. I have not received Exhibit A, Exhibit B, the insurance appraisal, photographs, or any document that lists or values the artifacts. They keep referring to exhibits that were never included in their 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 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the

Anne Drouin SPR25/3658 Page 3 December 22, 2025 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 City’s response, and the information provided in Mr. Gillis’ appeal petition, it remains unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Gillis’ request. If the City does possess additional 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. Gillis 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. Gillis may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Steve Gillis