Chritson, David v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20260604)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 9, 2026 SPR26/0604 Susan Tkaczuk City Hall, Law Department City of Somerville 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 Dear Ms. Tkaczuk: I have received the petition of David Chritson appealing the response of the City of Somerville (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 7, 2026, Mr. Chritson requested: [D]istinct records of the Somerville Police Department (“SPD”) -- including records in physical format (including papers, meeting notes, memos, etc.) and electronic format -- beginning on March 1, 2023 and continuing in a forward chronological order without skipping any records until the 2 hours of search and/or redaction are exhausted, after which you must stop the search or process to avoid fees. I am requesting only SPD internal records made or received by SPD’s [identified individual] and associated with . . . Responsive records must include [an identified individual’s] cell phone records, SMS, text messages, and app messages. Please search for physical and electronic records containing keywords or subject lines such as: [a list of four names.] The City responded on February 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0604, 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 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

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/0604 Page 2 March 9, 2026 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. The City’s February 20th Response In its February 20, 2026 response, the City states the following: Due to the magnitude of your request and the resources required to provide a complete response, the city will provide you with a supplemental response and provide you with the public records sought within 25 business days from the date of the receipt of your request. The city has identified records and intends to produce same, and may redact or withhold records if any exemptions are identified under the Massachusetts Public Records Law or any other statutes. Any exemptions will be set out in the City’s supplemental response to you. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson contends that: This appeal challenges the City’s unsupported and unreasonable assertion that it requires 25 business days to produce a narrowly tailored, fee-capped request. The City’s response is conclusory, noncompliant with § 10(b), and reflects a bad faith intent to delay and deter access. Where the City has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, I find that the basis of Mr. Chritson’s appeal is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe for producing records not to exceed 25 business days following initial receipt of the request). The requestor is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f).

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/0604 Page 3 March 9, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If issues remain once Mr. Chritson receives the response, he may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Chritson