Steve Gillis v. Methuen, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20253858)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR25/3858 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 Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/3579 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 11, 2025) and SPR25/3658 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22, 2025). In my December 22nd determination, I ordered the City to clarify whether it possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Gillis’ request. The City responded on December 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Gillis petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3858, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response on January 5, 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). 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 SPR25/3858 Page 2 January 15, 2026 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 30th Response On December 30, 2025, the City provided a response, stating, “[t]he City responded with all responsive records on December 8, 2025, please see attached. Exhibit A is the insurance appraisal report, which can be found on page 34 of the Response, see attached. Exhibit B is a list of the excepted artifacts, in this case only one, and can be found on pg. 25 of the Response, see attached.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Gillis contends: The City has provided a copy of the base Purchase and Sale Agreement; however, they have failed to provide the essential attachments and exhibits that define the “Public Assets” (artifacts and antiques) purchased for $1,000,000. Under the terms of the agreement, these documents are explicitly part of the transaction and are public records. Specifically, the City has withheld: 1. Exhibit A: The Insurance Appraisal Report by Schlegal Fine Art Consulting, LLC (dated Nov 19, 2020), which is the definitive inventory of the artifacts purchased. 2. Exhibit D: The “Seller Deliveries” list referenced in Section 5.4. 3. The Inclusions Addendum: Referenced in Section 1.2, identifying additional artifacts included in the sale. No Duty to Create Records 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

Anne Drouin SPR25/3858 Page 3 January 15, 2026 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). Further, the duty to comply with requests for records extends to identifying the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii). In its January 5, 2026 response, the City stated, “Mr. Gillis’ latest appeal is well outside of the original scope of his request…. This information has been provided to Mr. Gillis repeatedly, see attached.” Additionally, in a telephone call with this office on January 5th, the City confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to the request. Where the City has confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Gillis’ request, I find that the City 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. Gillis 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: Steve Gillis