Ryan Duarte v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20253770)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 6, 2026 SPR25/3770 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street, Room 203 New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Ryan Duarte appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 26, 2025, Mr. Duarte requested the following: [1] Delegated Authority [a] All written delegated authority that empowers the City Solicitor’s Office to create binding public-facing policies or rules of general applicability. [b] Any City Charter provision, ordinance, executive order, administrative directive, or internal memorandum conferring such authority. [2] The Purported “No Photocopy Policy” Please provide: [a] The written policy prohibiting photocopies to the public. [b] The date of adoption. [c] The name and title of the adopting official or body. [d] The legal authority the adopting official relied upon. [e] The procedure used to issue notice, including but not limited to: Publication method[,] Posting dates[,] Communications to the City Clerk[,] Internal memoranda[,] [and] Meeting minutes (if applicable)[.] The City provided a response on December 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3770, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the City provided a supplemental response to Mr. Duarte on December 29, 2025, which Mr. Duarte further appealed in an email to this office and the City on January 3, 2026. 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3770 Page 2 January 6, 2026 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. 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. Current Appeal In his December 22, 2025 appeal to this office, Mr. Duarte explains that he initially made his above, November 26, 2025 request when he “appeared in person at the . . . City Solicitor’s Office” on the same date and submitted the request verbally. He further notes that, “[d]uring [his] in-person visit on November 26, 2025[,]” a representative of the City stated that the City’s written photocopying policy was “[written] . . . a couple weeks ago,” that “[t]he notice posted on the office window was the policy,” and that, “[n]o photocopies would be provided pursuant to that policy.” He goes on to argue that, based on the information he received in response to his verbal November 26th request, in conjunction with the records he received in response to his written November 26, 2025 request, “[t]he City has now advanced two mutually exclusive factual narratives: 1. [The City] stated the policy was already written weeks earlier and embodied in posted signage; 2. The City . . . states no written policy existed, that it was oral only, and only later reduced to writing.” Mr. Duarte additionally maintains that “[t]he [‘]policy[’] cites budget cuts and staffing shortages as justification.” Consequently, upon review of the file, it is my understanding that on December 12, 2025, Mr. Duarte modified his request to seek the following: “[1] All budget allocations for photocopying by the Solicitor’s Office; [2] Copier leases, service contracts, invoices, and supply expenses; [3] Internal communications discussing photocopying burdens; [4] Any documents relied upon to justify eliminating photocopies.”

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3770 Page 3 January 6, 2026 The City’s December 12th and December 29th Responses In its December 12, 2025 response to Mr. Duarte’s November 26th request, a City representative provided 11 pages of responsive records and stated the following: I am writing on behalf of the City of New Bedford (the “City”) in response to your . . . request, received, via email, at the City Solicitor’s Office on November 26, 2025. . . . Attached directly to this email are documents responsive to your request “A.” Also attached to this email is the City’s response to a verbal public records request you made at the Office of the City Solicitor on November 26, 2025. That request was substantially similar to your present request “B” above. Therefore, the email and attached documents that were sent in response to that request are attached as they are equally responsive to your request “B” above. . . . In its supplemental December 29, 2025 response to Mr. Duarte’s modified December 12, 2025 request, as described above, a representative of the City acknowledged receipt and confirmed that the City, “will be providing [Mr. Duarte] with a response within 25 business days due to staffing shortages and the volume of records requests.” Further Appeal In a January 3, 2025 email to this office and the City, Mr. Duarte objects to the City’s supplemental December 29, 2025 response to his modified request and states, “[w]hile G.L. c. 66, §10(b)(vi) permits a municipality to identify a reasonable timeframe not exceeding 25 business days . . . the City has failed to: Identify which specific records require additional time; Explain why authority documents allegedly already relied upon require 25 days to locate; [and] Address whether such authority records exist at all.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) Pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi), a records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided that, for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. Where the City has indicated they intend to provide a response to the modified request within the allowed statutory timeframe, the basis of the Mr. Duarte’s appeal is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi)

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3770 Page 4 January 6, 2026 Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Duarte in his appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If Mr. Duarte 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, § l0A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte Ryan Pavao, Esq.