Rybicki, Jack v. Newbury, Town of (SPR 20260275)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 9, 2026 SPR26/0275 Tracy Blais Town Administrator Town of Newbury 12 Kent Way, Suite 101 Byfield, MA 01922 Dear Ms. Blais: I have received the petition of Jack Rybicki appealing the response of the Town of Newbury (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 9, 2025, Mr. Rybicki requested the following: [1] At [a] recent Select Board meeting…it was announced our audited Free Cash Balance is roughly $3.2 million dollars. Specific mention was made of PEG money transfer of $1.2M being added by vote at the Annual Town Meeting 2025. This combined with the Free Cash balance of $750K after votes were taken, adds to $1.9M of the 3.2M cited. This leaves approximately $1.3M of the Free Cash balance not described, or ascribed, to any particular excess funding sources. As by the annual audit this $1.3[M] computes to 14% of the budget administratively managed where 3-5% is the Best Practice recommended goal for municipalities, taxpaying Newbury citizens desire to know how such $1.3M balance to transfer was arrived at; if there are other documents to that end, electronic copy would be appreciated. [2] Therefore please, may we citizens have electronic copy of April, May, June 2025 reports of “budget to actual reporting” documents developed per MA state law… Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3436 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 4, 2025) and SPR25/3728 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 31, 2025). In my December 31st determination, I closed 25/3728 in light of 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

Tracy Blais SPR26/0275 Page 2 February 9, 2026 the Town providing Mr. Rybicki with an additional response on December 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Rybicki petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0275, 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. See 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 Town’s December 30th Response In its December 30, 2025 response, the Town stated: Per the Supervisor’s order on appeal SPR25/3436, the Town hereby confirms that it has provided you with all records responsive to the underlying request and all follow-up requests as well[;] Please be advised that the Town is not required to answer questions, do research, or create documents in response to your request or any follow-up thereto. See G.L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Atty Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The Town’s duty to comply with your request extends only to those records that exist and are in its custody at that time. See G.L. c. 4, § 7(26). The supplemental information provided in your December 18, 2025, response describes a scope of inquiry substantially different from your original request dated November [9]th. Consequently, as this latest submission is framed as a “follow-up Public Records Request,” it will be logged and handled as a new, independent request.

Tracy Blais SPR26/0275 Page 3 February 9, 2026 In an additional December 30, 2025 response, the Town provided Mr. Rybicki with responsive records. In a January 7, 2026 email to the Town, Mr. Rybicki stated, “[i]s this PRR which was part of mutual correspondence, which I have not discerned a response yet from Newbury officials, or can I please be directed to said response answer? Or may I please be guided to how to ask for documentation [sic]?” In a January 7, 2026 email to Mr. Rybicki, the Town stated, “[a]s stated in 12.30.2025 Response to SPR25-3436, the ‘ask by follow-up Public Records Request…’ that was substantially different from your original request dated November 10th, was treated as a new request, and satisfied with 12.30.2025 Response to 12.18.2025 (new) to which the responsive documents were produced. Attached are all of the documents as well as copies of the emails that were sent on December 30th, as well as the SPR determination dated December 31, 2025 [sic].” In a January 8, 2026 email to the Town, Mr. Rybicki stated, “[t]his Public Records ask was and is very simple: by what accounting and accounts did fiscal leadership in Newbury achieve 3.2. million in Certified Free Cash…The question of $1.3 million dollars remains unanswered and in no way have I yet been ‘assisted’ in pursuit of this righteous concern to help achieve legitimate provenance for we taxpayers…” Current Appeal In his January 28, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Rybicki stated, “I am asking of further Appeal: in the prior email of Jan. 27 was also enclosed a link to Newbury FinCom meeting where our Town Administrator in response to sitting committee member of the same Free Cash balance provenance question being asked here, promises documentation. It is that documentation being asked for here, and being denied as at all existent in the PRR’s shared [sic].” No Duty to Create Records; No Duty to Answer Questions 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 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 Mr. Rybicki submitted a question to the Town, I find the Town has no duty under the Public Records Law to answer such question. Additionally, where the Town has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to Mr. Rybicki’s request and this office has no authority to compel the Town to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Rybicki is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be

Tracy Blais SPR26/0275 Page 4 February 9, 2026 advised that this office shares 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: Jack Rybicki Joy Stanton