Duarte, Ryan v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260257)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0257 Katherine Schuko Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Ryan Duarte 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 January 9, 2026, Mr. Duarte requested: [1] Any sworn oath or affirmation of office, including but not limited to: - Oath of office - Appointment oath - Qualification oath - Any document evidencing compliance with Article VI of the Massachusetts Constitution or any applicable statute [2] Any surety bond, blanket bond, or bond coverage documentation, including: - Individual surety bonds - Blanket or fidelity bonds covering the individual - Bond declarations, riders, or certificates - Records identifying the bonding authority or insurer [3] If no oath and/or bond exists for a listed individual, please provide a written certification of non-existence identifying: - Whether the position is classified as an officer, employee, or agent - The legal basis (statute, ordinance, charter provision, or policy) for exemption from oath and/or bonding requirements Individuals Covered by This Request[:] - [An identified individual] – NB Board of Health member - [An identified individual] – NB Board of Health member 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

Attorney Katherine Schuko SPR26/0257 Page 2 February 5, 2026 - [An identified individual] – NB Board of Health member - [An identified individual] – Legal representative for the City / NB Board of Health - [An identified individual] – Associate NB City Solicitor / legal representative - [An identified individual] – NB City Solicitor - [An identified individual] – NB City Solicitor - [An identified individual] – Mayor of the City of New Bedford The City responded on January 26, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0257, 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. 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 January 26th Response On January 26, 2026, the City responded: So far, the City has identified the attached records matching the specifications provided in your request. Please also see the City’s prior response to you dated November 25, 2025. Additionally, where requested records are available on an indexed and searchable public website, a records access officer may furnish the requested records by providing reasonable assistance in locating the public website. You may access the City’s charter and code of ordinances by visiting: [a specified link].

Attorney Katherine Schuko SPR26/0257 Page 3 February 5, 2026 Lastly, due to the snow City Hall is closed today. The City anticipates providing a supplemental response with the remaining responsive records within 25 business days from receipt of your request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Duarte contends: The City’s response is incomplete and does not comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The City Failed to Produce Responsive Records[:] The City produced Certificates of Appointment, which merely establish appointment or confirmation. These documents are not responsive to my request…. … Improper Reliance on Website Substitution[:] The City improperly attempted to satisfy part of the request by directing me to the City’s Charter and Code of Ordinances hosted on Municode. … Unreasonable Delay and Constructive Denial[:] The City claims it will provide a “supplemental response” within 25 business days. … … Records Available on a Public Website Please be advised that it is permissible for the custodian of records to provide access to records via a link to a website. See G. L. c. 66, §6A(d) (“If the public record requested is available on a public website ... the records access officer may furnish the public record by providing reasonable assistance in locating the requested record on the public website.”); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.04 (5)(e) (“A records access officer shall ... to the extent feasible, furnish the public records by providing reasonable assistance in locating the records on an appropriately indexed and searchable public website”); 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (2)(a) (“A records access officer shall inform a requester of the availability of records online to avoid delays and fees associated with the provision of public records”). Where the City indicated in its January 26th response that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, I find that the basis of Mr. Duarte’s appeal is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein).

Attorney Katherine Schuko SPR26/0257 Page 4 February 5, 2026 Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A (a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Duarte, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If issues remain once Mr. Duarte receives the response, or if the City fails to provide a response within the statutory timeframe, Mr. Duarte may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte