Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260008)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR26/0008 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 15, 2025, Mr. Brower requested the following: [1] The total number of distinct individuals named . . . . (or reasonable variations such as . . . ., etc.) that appear in Springfield Police Department systems when searching for records responsive to the following scope (November 1-29, 2025 only): [a] Any contacts or requests (written or verbal) from the Springfield Veterans’ Services Office to SPD regarding [an identified individual][;] [b] Any SPD call logs, CAD notes, dispatch records, audio recordings, incident reports, or officer notes involving [an identified individual] (inbound or outbound calls/contacts)[;] [c] Any related inter-dependent communications referencing [an identified individual][;] [2] If more than one distinct individual is located, a non-identifying summary stating only the total count (e.g., “2 distinct individuals”) and whether any distinguishing attributes (e.g., different dates of birth, addresses, or phone numbers) were used to separate them[;] [3] If only one distinct individual is located, confirmation that a single [identified individual] matches the entire responsive scope described above. The City responded on December 16, and December 31, 2025. Unsatisfied by the responses, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0008, was opened as a 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0008 Page 2 January 16, 2026 result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Brower’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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. See 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 Department’s December 16th and December 31st Responses In its December 16, 2025 response, the City acknowledged receipt of Mr. Brower’s request, assigning it reference number 2025-4575, and stated, “[y]our request will be forwarded to the appropriate department(s) and a response will be sent to you as soon as we have obtained and reviewed any document(s) that may be responsive to your request.” In its December 31, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he Public Records Division has been advised that there are no records that are responsive to your request. In response to your request for call logs and audio, please refer to the City’s response to your request in Public Record Request No. 25-4321 by logging in to your request at the following link…The Public Records Division requires a 10 business day time extension to respond to your request for police reports. Please consent in the NextRequest Portal by replying to this message or any method.”

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0008 Page 3 January 16, 2026 In an additional December 31, 2025 response, the City stated, “No responsive record was located in response to a portion of your request. Public Records Request 25-4575 is partially duplicative of another request you submitted (25-4321) seeking call logs and audio. Accordingly, please refer to the City’s response to this portion of your request in Public Record Request No. 25-4321…” Current Appeal In his January 1, 2026 petition to this office, Mr. Brower argues: [1] …The request consisted of three numbered parts…The City’s response completely ignored this framework and provided no count, summary, or explicit confirmation, in violation of 950 CMR 32.06(1), which requires a response to every part of the request[;] [2] The City stated that the request is “partially duplicative”…By admitting the request is only partially duplicative, the City acknowledges that significant portions are unique and require an independent response…[;] [3] The response provided no details on the scope or method of search… In a January 2, 2026 email to this office, Mr. Brower stated, “[t]he City’s response is inadequate because: [i]t falsely claims #25-4575 is ‘partially duplicative’ of 25-4321, when the requests seek distinctly different information (aggregate count of distinct individuals vs. actual logs/audio)[;] [i]t fails to provide any records or explanation responsive to the narrow count/confirmation sought[;] [i]t prematurely closed the request without justification…” Based on Mr. Brower’s petition and the City’s responses, it is unclear whether the City possesses responsive records. 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 responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Brower with a response to his 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.

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0008 Page 4 January 16, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower