Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260205)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0205 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. 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. SPR26/0205 Page 2 February 3, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0008 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2026). In my January 16th determination, I ordered the City to clarify whether it possessed responsive records. The City provided a response on January 22, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0205, was opened as a 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 January 22nd Response In its January 22, 2026 response, the City stated the following: In Public Record Request No. 25-4575, the Public Records Division was advised by the police and Emergency Communications Departments that no responsive police report or call logs were located for the specified individuals or spelling

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0205 Page 3 February 3, 2026 variations. The requester was advised that no police reports were located in response to his request. In Public Records Request No. 25-4321, the Public Records Division was advised by the Police and Emergency Communications Departments that no responsive call logs were located for the name or spelling variations that were provided. The Public Records Division then asked the Emergency Communication Department to conduct a search based on the telephone number that was provided, which returned a call for service audio… Therefore, in regard to the matter at hand, no responsive police reports or call logs were located as there were no records matching the specified names. The call audio [that] was released to him in Public Record Request No. 25-4321 was located based on a search of the provided telephone number, and was done by the City in effort to assist the requester locate the information that he sought. Furthermore, we denied Mr. Brower’s request to conduct a search of records based on the identity of who made the complaint under M.G.L. ch. 4, § 7(26)(c) and (f)… Current Appeal In his January 1, 2026 petition to this office, Mr. Brower argues: [1] …No clarification of possession for unique request elements….The response provides no count, no summary, and no confirmation—only a general “no records” claim based on name searches, without acknowledging or answering the distinct parts of the request[;] [2] No details on search scope or method….The response offers no information on who searched, which systems/databases were used, full search parameters (beyond basis name variations), date-range verification, or any effort to search for VSO-initiated contacts or justifications as requested in item [1][;] [3] [Regarding Public Records Request No. 25-4321] Continued reliance on broad, blanket exemptions….The City again invokes Exemptions (c) (privacy) and (f) (investigatory materials)… Please be advised that if Mr. Brower is unsatisfied with the City’s response to his “Public Records Request No. 25-4321”, he may appeal that response separately within ninety (90) calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). No Duty to Create Records – Public Records Request No. 25-4575 Please be advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0205 Page 4 February 3, 2026 questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Conclusion Where the City has stated that it does not possess records responsive to Mr. Brower’s December 15th request and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Brower is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office share 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: William Brower Justin Morin