Duarte, Ryan v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260260)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 6, 2026 SPR26/0260 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Associate City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street, Room 203 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 November 26, 2025, Mr. Duarte requested the following: [1] Delegated Authority [a] All written delegated authority that empowers the City Solicitor’s Office to create binding public-facing policies or rules of general applicability. [b] Any City Charter provision, ordinance, executive order, administrative directive, or internal memorandum conferring such authority. [2] The Purported “No Photocopy Policy” Please provide: [a] The written policy prohibiting photocopies to the public. [b] The date of adoption. [c] The name and title of the adopting official or body. [d] The legal authority the adopting official relied upon. [e] The procedure used to issue notice, including but not limited to: Publication method[,] Posting dates[,] Communications to the City Clerk[,] Internal memoranda[,] [and] Meeting minutes (if applicable)[.] On December 12, 2025, Mr. Duarte modified his request to seek the following: [1] All budget allocations for photocopying by the Solicitor’s Office; [2] Copier leases, service contracts, invoices, and supply expenses; [3] Internal communications discussing photocopying burdens; [4] Any documents relied upon to justify eliminating photocopies. 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

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0260 Page 2 February 6, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3770 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 6, 2026). In my January 6th determination, I found that where the City intended to provide a response to the modified request within the allowed statutory timeframe, the basis of the Mr. Duarte’s appeal was unclear. The City provided a response on January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0260, 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 23rd Response In its January 23, 2026 response, the City provided Mr. Duarte with records and cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to redact the requested records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Additionally, the City directed Mr. Duarte to “an indexed and searchable public website” to “access responsive budget records.” Further, the City stated it “has not identified any responsive records in its possession matching the specifications provided” for Item 3 of Mr. Duarte’s December 12, 2025 modified request. Current Appeal In his January 23, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Duarte argued the following: [1] Failure to Produce Office-Specific Budget Allocations…The City produced no responsive records and instead directed me to a general CFO webpage containing

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0260 Page 3 February 6, 2026 citywide summaries…If no office-specific budget records exist, the City must certify their nonexistence… [2] Failure to Produce Records Justifying Policy Adoption…The City Solicitor’s written “public photocopying policy” expressly cites budget cuts and staffing shortages as justification…the City produced no records supporting these claims. If no such documents exist, then the stated rationale for the policy is unsupported… [3] Improper “No Records Exist” Assertion Without Certification…The City asserts that no responsive records exist for “internal communications discussing photocopying burdens.” Given that the City claims the policy was adopted due to cost and workload concerns, this assertion is implausible… Upon review, it appears that Mr. Duarte does not object to the redactions made by the City to responsive records pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. Records in Existence – Internal Communications and Policy Based on Mr. Duarte’s petition and the City’s response, it is unclear whether the City possesses records responsive to Mr. Duarte’s Item 3 and Item 4 of the December 12th modified request. 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. Records Available on a Public Website – Budget Allocations 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”). In this case, the City has confirmed that some of the records Mr. Duarte seeks are available on a public website, and has provided him with a link to the website. Consequently, based on the City’s response, and the information in the appeal petition, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this aspect of the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Duarte with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0260 Page 4 February 6, 2026 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. Duarte 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: Ryan Duarte Ryan Pavao, Esq.