Rowley, Joyce v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260453)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0453 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 Joyce Rowley 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 December 8, 2025, Ms. Rowley requested the following for the period beginning on November 1, 2025: [1] Clinical records for Asian elephant Emily[;] [2] Records of injury and or incidents to Emily or keepers[;] [3] Laboratory results and/or reports for bloodwork, cultures, or other tests performed on Emily[;] [4] Keeper’s Daily Logs for Emily[;] [5] Radiographs performed on Emily and any reports or readings by a veterinary radiologist of same[;] [6] [R]adiological report for the radiographs of Emily’s front feet taken in October 2025[;] [7] Asian elephant consultant reports or assessments[;] [8] Quality of Life (QOL) Assessments and meeting minutes of QOL meetings for Emily[;] [9] Zoo transactions including births, deaths, transfers, and information on the age, sex, and ID number of the specimens, as well as the name of the receiving or donating facility[;] [10] Copies of correspondence, records and reports from the Association of Zoos & Aquariums[;] [11] U.S.D.A. APHIS Animal Care inspection reports[;] [12] Any and all agreements, including lease-purchase agreements, between the City and the Buttonwood Park Zoological Society[.] 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. SPR26/0453 Page 2 February 19, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3809 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 9, 2026). In my January 9th determination, I ordered the City to clarify whether it possesses records responsive to Items 2, 5-8, and 10-12. The City provided a response on January 26, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Rowley petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0453, 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. Att’y 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 In its January 26, 2026 response, the City stated, “[o]n December 22nd, the City produced all responsive records that it possessed at the time your request was received as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). As indicated in the City’s response of December 22, 2025, the City did not have any responsive records to Items 2, 5-8, and 10-12. You may decide to place a records request for any additional records that you may be seeking. Notably, since this appeal has been on-going, the City has already received a new request from you dated January 15th. That request is being processed accordingly. If the records being sought are not included in the scope of your January 15th request, you may decide to place a new request.” Current Appeal In her January 30, 2026 petition to this office, Ms. Rowley stated, “[p]lease…order [the City] to provide the records for the period November 1, 2025 to December 1, 2025 in toto, and the October radiological report [sic].”

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0453 Page 3 February 19, 2026 No Duty to Create Records 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 the City has confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Items 2, 5-8, and 10-12 and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Rowley 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. 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: Joyce Rowley