Nicastro, Jeremiah v. Gloucester, City of - Legal Department (SPR 20260494)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2026 SPR26/0494 Kathleen M. Lane Paralegal City of Gloucester Legal Department City Hall, 9 Dale Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Dear Ms. Lane: I have received the petition of Jeremiah Nicastro appealing the response of the City of Gloucester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 2, 2026, Mr. Nicastro submitted the following request: Could you please provide me copies of any “anonymous” or named concerns or complaints from 4/1/2025-12/30/2025 regarding the Community impact Unit’s Financial affairs through SeeClick Fix, Email, notes, letters etc. The City responded on January 14, and February 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Nicastro petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0494, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to this office and Mr. Nicastro on February 13, 2026. 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 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

Kathleen M. Lane SPR26/0494 Page 2 February 25, 2026 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 Responses In its January 14, 2026 response, the City provided four records responsive to the request. In its February 10, 2026 response, a representative for the City states that “the City did a diligent search and the emails which were responsive to your request were released to you. I’ve attached the original email chain.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Nicastro argues the following: They have responded to my request twice with information that wasn’t relevant to my request. I was subject to an internal investigation and I’m requesting info related to anonymous or unnamed complaint regarding the internal investigation. The city keeps sending me copies of my own emails that has nothing to do with my request. In correspondence to the City included with his appeal petition, Mr. Nicastro provides the following clarification of his request: My request was for online seeclickfix, and emails that were complaints or concerns made about the financing at CIU…(prior to investigation) . . . Per the report from [a specified individual], she stated “it was brought to the cities attention”. I believe there was an anonymous complaint or named through see click fix. That’s what I’m looking for a copy of. In an email to this office on February 18, 2026, Mr. Nicastro further explains “[t]here was a complaint that was initially made and I want to copy of it.” Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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

Kathleen M. Lane SPR26/0494 Page 3 February 25, 2026 questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In it a February 13, 2026 response to this office and Mr. Nicastro, the City states the following: The City received the request on January 2, 2026. In response, the City conducted an exhaustive and diligent search of its records. The City responded on January 13, 2026 by providing Mr. Nicastro with the responsive records which were in its control and possession. Based on the City’s response, and in light of the clarification provided in Mr. Nicastro’s subsequent communications with the City, it is unclear whether the City may possess additional records responsive to Mr. Nicastro’s request. If the City does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Nicastro with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Mr. Nicastro may further appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeremiah Nicastro