Berry-Cahn, Jeremy v. North Andover, Town of-- (SPR 20260335)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 11, 2026 SPR26/0335 Christine P. O’Connor, Esq. Town Counsel Town of North Andover 120 Main Street North Andover, MA 01845 Dear Attorney O’Connor: I have received the petition of Jeremy Berry-Cahn appealing the response of the Town of North Andover (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 24, 2025, Mr. Berry-Cahn requested, “…a copy of the death certificate for [an identified individual], who died in North Andover on May 28th, 1947.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/1815 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 7, 2025); SPR25/2038 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 29, 2025); SPR25/2763 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 30, 2025); SPR25/3342 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 21, 2025); SPR25/3468 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 9, 2025); and SPR26/0012 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2026). In my January 16th determination, I found that the Town had not met its burden to withhold the responsive record under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The Town responded on January 29, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Berry-Cahn petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0335, 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). 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 P. O’Connor, Esq. SPR26/0335 Page 2 February 11, 2026 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 Town’s January 29th Response In its January 29, 2026 response, the Town continued to withhold the requested record pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and stated: It is clear that from the overall statutory scheme of MGL Chapter 46, that the intent of the legislature was to create a uniform repository and appearance for all vital records in the Commonwealth. This is an area that the state has chosen to exclusively regulate, and to do so in order to advance a significant public purpose: protecting its residents from fraud and identity theft. If municipalities were allowed to produce uncertified vital records, the legitimate public purpose of the state would be completely eroded. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Berry-Cahn argued: The statutory scheme of G. L. c. 46 and Chapter 327 of the Acts of 2010 governs the certification, maintenance, and fraud prevention related to certified vital records. Neither statute expressly nor by necessary implication exempts an uncertified municipal copy of a death record… This request has been the subject of numerous appeals, and the Town’s position has remained unchanged despite repeated determinations by your office that its reliance on Exemption (a) is insufficient. Referred to the Office of the Attorney General The subject matter and the issues raised in Mr. Berry-Cahn’s appeal, as well as the Town’s response, are similar to those addressed in SPR25/2684 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 23, 2025) and SPR25/2814 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 2, 2025). Please note that on January 21, 2026, I referred these matters to the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) for enforcement. In light of this referral sent to the AGO, I decline to provide a determination as to the public status of the requested records at this time pending a resolution to the AGO’s review. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Christine P. O’Connor, Esq. SPR26/0335 Page 3 February 11, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Berry-Cahn is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeremy Berry-Cahn