Valentino, Gianna v. Saugus, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20260487)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0487 Chief Michael Ricciardelli Records Access Officer Saugus Police Department 27 Hamilton Street Saugus, MA 01906 Dear Chief Ricciardelli: I have received the petition of Gianna Valentino appealing the response of the Saugus Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Ms. Valentino requested, “…the audio recording of PSAP Call Date/Time 12/16/2025 13:58:00 from fire dept incident number SMF-2025-5-19497 incident at … fairmount rd. I’m also requesting any Dispatch audio related to the initial call that was recorded.” The Department assigned reference number 2026-0029 to this request. Prior Appeals The requested records were the subject of prior appeals. See SPR26/0209 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 3, 2026) and SPR26/0418 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2026). In my February 10th determination, I closed the appeal as a result of the Department’s February 10, 2026 response. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Valentino petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0487, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on February 20, 2026, the Department provided a supplemental response. 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

Chief Michael Ricciardelli SPR26/0487 Page 2 February 20, 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. 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 Department’s February 10th Response On February 10, 2026, the Department provided a responsive record and stated, “[p]lease see attached audio requested for … Fairmont Ave on 12/16/25. Due to the file being small, we have waived the $25 records fee for this.” In a subsequent email on February 10th, the Department stated, “Ms. Valentino has been given all audio as well as the call report. We have nothing further to send.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Valentino contends: The SEC stated that the [Department] sent and fulfilled by FOIA request for request 0029. That did not happen and [the Department] lied to you. [The Department] closed out and completed request 0026 NOT 0029[.] The [Department] did not provide me with the audio for Saugus request 2026– 0029. They provided me with the audio for Saugus request 2026–0026. My FOIA request clearly asks for the audio from the 1358 call into Dispatch. The [Department] did not provide that audio. On February 20, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, Ms. Valentino further clarified her appeal as follows: I have not received the recording of the telephone call that went into Dispatch at 1358 on December 16, 2025. The [Department] has not sent me that audio recording. All phone calls into Dispatch are recorded. The [Department] has not reported the status of that phone call into Dispatch. The [Department] has not stated whether or not that phone call into Dispatch exists or if it has been deleted.

Chief Michael Ricciardelli SPR26/0487 Page 3 February 20, 2026 If the [Department] is going to assert that the phone call that went into Dispatch at 1358 on December 16, 2025 has been lost or it was not recorded, the [Department] needs to needs to [sic] report that the digital archive file no longer exists. All phone calls are recorded and digitally kept in a historical archive. [The Department] has not reported on the existence of that record, if that record was deleted, and if that record has been destroyed. More so they have not reported as to why is that record is not available. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). On February 20, 2026, in a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the Department, the Department confirmed that there are no additional records responsive to the request. Additionally, on February 20th, in an email sent to this office and Ms. Valentino, the Department confirmed, “Ms. Valentino has been sent all recorded audio. Also, due it being minimal in size and sent electronically, we waived the standard $25 records fee.” Conclusion Where the Department confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Valentino’s request, and this office has no authority to compel the Department to create records, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Valentino 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: Gianna Valentino