Joyce Rowley v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20253809)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 9, 2026 SPR25/3809 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 Joyce Rowley 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 December 8, 2025, Ms. Rowley requested the following for the period beginning on November 1, 2025: [1] Clinical records for Asian elephant Emily[;] [2] Records of injury and or incidents to Emily or keepers[;] [3] Laboratory results and/or reports for bloodwork, cultures, or other tests performed on Emily[;] [4] Keeper’s Daily Logs for Emily[;] [5] Radiographs performed on Emily and any reports or readings by a veterinary radiologist of same[;] [6] [R]adiological report for the radiographs of Emily’s front feet taken in October 2025[;] [7] Asian elephant consultant reports or assessments[;] [8] Quality of Life (QOL) Assessments and meeting minutes of QOL meetings for Emily[;] [9] Zoo transactions including births, deaths, transfers, and information on the age, sex, and ID number of the specimens, as well as the name of the receiving or donating facility[;] [10] Copies of correspondence, records and reports from the Association of Zoos & Aquariums[;] [11] U.S.D.A. APHIS Animal Care inspection reports[;] [12] Any and all agreements, including lease-purchase agreements, between the City and the Buttonwood Park Zoological Society[.] 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. SPR25/3436 Page 2 January 9, 2026 The City provided a response on December 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Rowley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3809, 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 December 22nd Response In its December 22, 2025 response, the City provided records responsive to Items 1, 3, 4, and 9, stating as to Items 2, 5-8, and 10-12, “[t]he City does not have any responsive records.” Current Appeal In her December 24, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rowley stated, “[t]he City’s response does not include the radiological report prepared by a consultant for radiographs of Asian elephant Emily referred to in the records as having been performed on November 2, 2025 (but also identified in previous records as radiographs dated October 30, 2025)…[the City] fail[ed] to provide records for the period of December 9 to December 22, 2025…” Based on Ms. Rowley’s petition and the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Items 2, 5-8, and 10-12. 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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether it possesses records responsive to Items 2, 5-8, and 10-12.

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR25/3436 Page 3 January 9, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Rowley 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. Ms. Rowley may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joyce Rowley