Manjapra, Kris v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20260819)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 19, 2026 SPR26/0819 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge Office of the City Solicitor 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Kris Manjapra appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 4, 2026, Mr. Manjapra requested, “…any available information about alleged sexual abuse of minors by [an identified individual], birthdate February 17, 1953. He is the minister of a church, and someone from the community has come forward about a court case in 2001. Our church group is trying to get the full picture of reports of sexual abuse of minors made about [an identified individual].” The City assigned reference number P260006-010426 to the request. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0473 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 24, 2026). In my February 24th determination, I found that the City must identify the responsive records and clarify how the records can be withheld under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The City responded on March 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Manjapra petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0819, 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

Seah Levy SPR26/0819 Page 2 March 19, 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 March 6th Response In its March 6, 2026 response, the City cited G. L. c. 41, § 97D, as the statute operates through Exemption (a), and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). The City further stated, “. . . the responsive records contain allegations related to sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses. This includes two separate reports by the Cambridge Police Department, each on a different date. The reports list names of parties involved and narratives of said allegations.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Manjapra contends: In its initial response, the City of Cambridge Law Department indicated it has responsive records. In its response to the appeal decision, it clarified that it has two responsive records on two different dates. Thus, clearly, the City of Cambridge Law Department determines that some information can be shared in response to this Public Record Request and Appeal. What are the dates (i.e the years) of the initial reports of the two incidents? Providing this additional information will not expose the City of Cambridge to any additional risk, based on its own reasoning. The City of Cambridge Law Department should provide as much accurate (as opposed to vague) information as possible within the constraints. Based on Mr. Manjapra’s appeal petition, he does not appear to be appealing the City’s withholding of the responsive records under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law.

Seah Levy SPR26/0819 Page 3 March 19, 2026 No Duty to Answer Questions Mr. Manjapra is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends only 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). Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a custodian 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). Unclear Appeal Based on the foregoing, the basis of Mr. Manjapra’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Manjapra is advised 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(l)(f). In this case, the City provided a response citing Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records, and Mr. Manjapra does not appear to appeal the City’s response withholding the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Manjapra may wish to resubmit his appeal and clarify his objections to the City’s response. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f) (all petitions for appeal shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kris Manjapra