Chritson, David v. Somerville, City of (SPR 20260607)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 10, 2026 SPR26/0607 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 December 30, 2025, Mr. Chritson requested “all reports, correspondence, and communications (whether physical or electronic) that RSJ or its staff made or received to or from the Somerville Mayor’s office, and associated with me and/or [an identified incident.]” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0175 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 23, 2026). In my January 23rd determination, I closed SPR26/0175 in light of the City providing Mr. Chritson with a written response on January 22nd, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Chritson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0607, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the City provided a further response to Mr. Chritson and this office on February 26, 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. 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 SPR26/0607 Page 2 March 10, 2026 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 January 22nd and February 26th Responses In its January 22, 2026 response, the City states the following: [T]he City has received and responded to similar, previous requests from Mr. Chritson, which would cover the scope of this new request. This includes a request from October 9, 2025, for “all existing records associated with the investigations and cases of the Somerville Department of Racial and Social Justice (“RSJ”) that involve David Chritson—including records in physical, electronic, or any other format—from August 5, 2022 to December 31, 2022, that are in the possession, custody, or control of RSJ, SPD, and/or the City.” The City provided a link to records responsive to this request on November 14, 2025. ... The scope of that broad request would include correspondence between [a named individual] of the Department of Racial and Social Justice and the Mayor’s office from August 2022 to present. The City confirmed to the Supervisor that it had already provided all the responsive records located from August 5, 2022 through December 31, 2022 (see SPR25/3370 Determination Letter). The City also responded to a request dated November 14, 2025, for “all existing records associated with the investigations and cases of the Somerville Department of Racial and Social Justice (“RSJ”) that involve [a named individual]—including records in physical, electronic, or any other format— from January 1, 2023 to June 30, 2023, that are in the possession, custody, or control of RSJ, SPD, and/or the City…” by providing responsive records for all of 2023 (see attached). The City provided responsive records to Mr. Chritson on December 2, 2025. Again, the scope of the broad, prior requests would have include records for this new request. Therefore, this new request is redundant and it is unnecessary for the City to run a new search since we have already provided all documents responsive to the request.

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/0607 Page 3 March 10, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Chritson contends that: The City produced no records. Instead, it claimed: (1) It could not locate the request email in its public records inbox; and (2) The request was “redundant” because prior productions allegedly “would include” such communications. Both positions fail as a matter of law. . . . I reviewed prior productions cited by the City and they clearly do not contain: - Emails or files to or from Mayor’s Office domains; - Communications addressed to “Mayor,” “Office of the Mayor,” or Somerville Police; - RSJ reports referencing submission to the Mayor’s Office. 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 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 its February 26, 2026 response, the City further explains the following: [I]t is the City’s position that the records requested in the December 30, 2025, email were substantially the same as those requested on October 9, 2025. Therefore, to the extent any such records existed, they would have been included in the set of records provided to Mr. Chritson via email on November 14, 2025. . . . It is the City’s position that responsive records, if any, would have been located during the previous search, which requested (in more general terms) content from the relevant time span. When the City received the original request of October 9, 2025, the City made a diligent, good faith effort to locate responsive records by working with City employees and IT to search for responsive records in RJS, the Mayor’s office, and Somerville Police Department (SPD) emails, electronic drives, and physical files. ([A named individual] had left the City prior to 2025 and was unavailable to personally assist with the search or clarify how and what communications were made.) Our email to the Supervisor on January 22, 2026, categorized the new request as “redundant” because those search efforts would be the same as the previous request, thereby expending staff time to locate the same documents which had already been provided on November 14, 2025. Furthermore, the City also provided related RSJ records from 2023 which were

Susan Tkaczuk SPR26/0607 Page 4 March 10, 2026 located in response to Mr. Chritson’s request of November 14, 2025. He was notified on December 2, 2025, that these records were uploaded to the folder shared previously with him. The Requester also raised a concern that the records provided did not include records to or from the Mayor’s office and Somerville Police Department. The City searched for records to and from these departments and to the extent that relevant records were located, they were previously provided via the link. The set included responsive communications with RSJ employees and [a named individual] of the Mayor’s office, and [a second named individual] of SPD. With its February 26th response, the City also included a link to the records previously provided in response to the earlier requests. Where the City has confirmed that it does not possess additional responsive records, and the City has no duty to create records in response to a request, I find that the City has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Chritson 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: David Chritson