Brower, William v. Springfield, City of (SPR 20260376)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 17, 2026 SPR26/0376 Alesia Days, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Springfield 36 Court Street, Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Attorney Days: 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 November 29, 2025, Mr. Brower requested the following: [1] Every Chapter 115 work-search agreement, plan, or form that [an identified individual], ha[s] ever signed or acknowledged with the Springfield Department of Veterans’ Services, including but not limited to: [a] Any document specifying the required number of weekly or monthly job searches[;] [b] Any document referencing the MOSES report requirement[;] [c] Any document outlining penalties or consequences for noncompliance[;] [d] Any revisions or updated versions of the work-search plan presented to [an identified individual] in 2025[;] [2] Any internal notes, emails, or case-file entries showing when these agreements were provided to [an identified individual], when [an identified individual] signed them, and any explanation given by VSO staff about the requirements. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3815 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 12, 2026) and SPR26/0136 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 29, 2026). In my January 29th determination, I ordered the City to clarify its claims to withhold responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and encouraged Mr. Brower and the City to communicate directly to determine if there is another

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0376 Page 2 February 17, 2026 means affording Mr. Brower a greater right of access to the responsive records. The City had previously responded on January 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0376, 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. 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 interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. It is unclear if Mr. Brower may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Mr. Brower a greater right of access to the responsive records. The City’s January 13th Response In its January 13, 2026 response, the City stated that “any record related to Chapter 115 Veteran Benefit would be withheld from disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. ch.4, § 7 (26) (c) of the Public Records Law.” The City additionally advised, “…the City’s Veteran Services Department and/or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Veteran Services should be contacted for information regarding payments or their case.”

Alesia Days, Esq. SPR26/0376 Page 3 February 17, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower argued that the City’s responses constituted an “improper application of Exemption (c) and bad faith,” and that “[t]his non-production causes direct, material prejudice to my active Chapter 115 appeal.” Issues Previously Addressed It is my understanding that this request and the issues raised in Mr. Brower’s appeal concerning the City’s January 13, 2026 response were addressed in SPR26/0136 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 29, 2026), in which I ordered the City to provide Mr. Brower with a further response to the request within ten business days. Once the City provides a further response, Mr. Brower may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response to SPR26/0136 within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower Justin P. Morin