Thy Kingdom Come v. Secretary of the Commonwealth-Administrative Services Division (SPR 20253739)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 5, 2026 SPR25/3739 Sofya Gray Records Access Officer Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth Administrative Services Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1719 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Gray: I have received the petition of Thomas Edward Humphrey appealing the response of the Administrative Services Division (Division) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 16, 2025, Mr. Humphrey requested the following: [C]opies of the oaths of office and any associated fidelity bonds for the following judicial officers: Judge [a named individual], Woburn District Court Judge [a second named individual], Middlesex Superior Court Judge [a third named individual], Middlesex Superior Court The Division responded on October 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Division’s response, Mr. Humphrey petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3739, 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

Sofya Gray SPR25/3739 Page 2 January 5, 2026 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 Division’s October 29th Response In its October 29, 2025 response, the Division provides numerous records in redacted form, and explains that “the redactions are made pursuant to Exemption (o) of the Public Records Law. Under Exemption (o), the Division is redacting the home address of [the named individuals].” The Division also states “that there are no responsive records in our possession regarding [the third individual].” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Humphrey contends that I received copies of the oaths of office for both judges. However, the response failed to include the requested bond information, such as the surety bonds, bond numbers, surety company details, bond amounts, and filing dates. No explanation was provided for the omission, nor was I informed whether such records exist or are exempt from disclosure. This constitutes a constructive denial of part of my request, as the custodian did not fully comply with the requirement to produce all responsive records or provide a written explanation for any withholdings. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand that Mr. Humphrey does not object to the redactions of residential addresses under Exemption (o). Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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 conversation with a senior attorney of the Public Records Division on January 5, 2026, a representative of the Division confirmed that the Division does not possess additional

Sofya Gray SPR25/3739 Page 3 January 5, 2026 records responsive to the request. Where the Division has confirmed that it does not possess additional responsive records, and the Division has no duty to create records, I find that the Division has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Humphrey 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: Thomas Edward Humphrey