Ferretti, Alec v. Haverhill, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20260013)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR26/0013 Christine Lindberg Chief of Staff City of Haverhill 4 Summer Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Lindberg, I have received the petition of Alec Ferretti appealing the response of the City of Haverhill (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 26, 2025, Mr. Ferretti requested, “…scans of the birth certificate / return of birth for [an identified individual] born 9 Jul 1920.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2694 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 25, 2025); SPR25/3236 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 17, 2025); and SPR25/3556 (December 16, 2025). In my December 16th determination, I found that the City had not met its burden to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The City responded on December 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Ferretti petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0013, 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

Christine Lindberg SPR26/0013 Page 2 January 16, 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 City’s December 29th Response In its December 29, 2025 response, the City continued to cite the statutory scheme of G. L. c. 46, as well as Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Ferretti stated, “[t]he [City] has refused to bring up any new arguments and is thus functionally ignoring the Supervisor’s previous order.” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities.

Christine Lindberg SPR26/0013 Page 3 January 16, 2026 G. L. c. 46 In its December 29, 2025 response, the City cited the statutory scheme of G. L. c. 46, which governs “return and registry of births, marriages and deaths.” Specifically, in its previous responses, the City relied on G. L. c. 46, § 16 (governing blank forms for vital records); G. L. c. 46, § 18 (governing script used on forms; state standards for uniformity, security, materials, devices and preservation); G. L. c. 46, § 19C (governing authentication of copies of birth, marriage and death records; use as evidence); G. L. c. 46, § 32 (governing actions by clerk and state registrar for misconduct regarding vital records); and G. L. c. 46, § 33 (regulating centralized, automated database for vital records and statistics; maintenance and preservation of original paper copies). Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 Further, the City’s response relies on Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010, which provides in pertinent part: …When the state registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a vital record may have been falsely made, altered, forged, counterfeited or procured through fraud or misrepresentation or improper use of the signature or facsimile of the signature or signature stamp of a town clerk or the state registrar, the state registrar shall: (i) take reasonable administrative action to prevent and control fraud or improper use of the record, including instructions to all vital records clerks who have custody of the record to limit, restrict or stop issuing certified copies or making the record available for examination notwithstanding any general or special laws to the contrary; and (ii) notify appropriate law enforcement authorities…. Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010. Under Exemption (a), the City stated: To again clarify, the City submits that the purpose of the vital records statutory scheme is to prevent fraud and identify theft by carefully and meticulously regulating the creation, maintenance, authentication, and dissemination of vital records. Providing uncertified – and, therefore, unauthenticated – vital records to the public would clearly undermine this purpose. Hence, the statutory scheme necessarily implies that uncertified vital records are protected from disclosure. The City’s position is bolstered by the fact that the Commonwealth’s Registry of Vital Records and Statistics – the state agency charged with administering G. L. c. 46 and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 – continues to advise municipal clerks to provide certified vital records only. For the foregoing reasons, the City again submits that it has met its burden under Exemption (a) and will continue to withhold the responsive records accordingly.

Christine Lindberg SPR26/0013 Page 4 January 16, 2026 Based on the City’s response, I find the City has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records pursuant to the statutory scheme of G. L. c. 46 and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010. Where G. L. c. 46 pertains to the duties and obligations of town and city clerks and the state registrar regarding the processes of certifying and maintaining certified vital records in accordance with the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, and where Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 concerns the state registrar’s duty to take reasonable action to prevent and control identity theft, fraud and improper use of vital records, it remains unclear how the statutes specifically or by necessary implication permit the City to withhold the requested uncertified records from disclosure. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, a statute must either expressly state that the withheld records are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Ferretti 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. Mr. Ferretti 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: Alec Ferretti Alexander M. Castro, Esq.