Archambault, Rob v. Seekonk, Town of - Town Clerk (SPR 20261165)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 13, 2026 SPR26/1165 Christina Testa Executive Administrative Assistant Town of Seekonk Seekonk Town Hall 100 Peck Street Seekonk, MA 02771 Dear Ms. Testa: I have received the petition of Robert Archambault appealing the response of the Town of Seekonk (Town) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 14, 2026, Mr. Archambault requested, “[a]ll email correspondence between selectboard and town administrator from 7/1/2022 to 3/31/2023[.] Requesting all information and correspondence prior to, during and after the removal of the police chief of Seekonk. [sic] within these dates[.]” The Town responded on March 25, 2026 and March 26, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Town’s responses, Mr. Archambault petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1165, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Town provided a supplemental response in an email to Mr. Archambault and this office on April 1, 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. 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 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

Christina Testa SPR26/1165 Page 2 April 13, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Archambault objects to the Town’s responses and states that in its March 25, 2026 response, the Town “writes that they are going through the 400 page document to review and redact. On day ten there are no records to be found. Were they deleted? The town states that they are not required to answer any questions relating to the request.” He further contends that on March 26, 2026, the Town indicated that “there are no records to be found.” The Town’s Responses In its March 25, 2026 response, the Town acknowledged “receipt of [the] public records [request] dated . . . March 14, 2026” and further noted the request was received by the Town on Monday, March 16, 2026.” The Town additionally stated that it “already started the research for [the] requests [sic], and, currently, there are over 400 pages of documents that need to be reviewed and possibly redacted.” The Town further noted that it would provide Mr. Archambault with a response to his above request “within ten business days of [the] initial request.” In its March 26, 2026, the Town advised, [a]fter careful review of the records in the Town’s possession, the Town has identified no records as responsive to [the] request.” In its April 1, 2026 supplemental response, a representative for the Town clarified that the portion of the Town’s March 25, 2026 response in which the Town “explained that ‘there were over 400 pages that needed to be reviewed and possibly redacted’” concerned “a separate public records request” from Mr. Archambault “dated March 13, 2026[.]” It is my understanding that Mr. Archambault’s March 13, 2026 request, and the Town’s responses concerning the March 13, 2026 request, is currently the subject of a separate appeal. See SPR26/1164. The Town representative further confirmed in its April 1, 2026 supplemental response that it did not possess records responsive to Mr. Archambault’s above request and stated, “[o]ur office reached out to our IT Director to conduct a search on our server for all responsive emails in accordance with the request and, ultimately, there were no responsive emails.” The Town representative also provided a copy of additional March 26, 2026 correspondence to Mr. Archambault in which the Town explained, “that the 400 pages of documents were for his March 13th request and there were no responsive emails for [the March 14, 2026] request.”

Christina Testa SPR26/1165 Page 3 April 13, 2026 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, 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). 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). Conclusion Given that the Town possesses no records responsive to Mr. Archambault’s request and this office has no authority to compel the Town to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Archambault 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: Robert Archambault