Castegnaro, Jr., John v. Pittsfield, City of (SPR 20140406)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 3, 2014 SPR14/406 Mr. John A. Carchedi Building Inspector City of Pittsfield City Hall 70 Allen Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Mr. Carchedi: I have received the petition of John Castegnaro, Jr., appealing the response of the City of Pittsfield-Office of the Building Inspector (City) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Castegnaro, Jr. requested a copy of a complaint that was filed against him, along with the name of the complainant. You denied his request, citing the investigatory exemption to the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(f). The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(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 town 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 ( c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). Exemption (f) In both your response to your public record request, as well as a supplemental response provided by City Attorney Darren M. Lee, you explained that the City would withhold the entire statement pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (f), the so-called investigatory exemption, allows investigatory officials to withhold: OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. John A. Carchedi SPR14/406 Page Two October 3, 2014 investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(±) This exemption allows investigative officials to withhold materials that could compromise investigative efforts if disclosed. There is no blanket exemption, however, for records created or maintained by investigative officials. District Attorney for the Norfolk District v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 512 (1995); WBZ-TV4 v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, 408 Mass. 595, 603 (1990). Therefore, a custodian generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. The exemption is also intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Bougas v. Chie(o(Police, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Consequently, there is no requirement that an investigative agency demonstrate prejudice to an ongoing investigation to withhold the identities of voluntary witnesses, informants or complainants. Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281,290 n.18 (1979). Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd, 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The Supreme Judicial Court has held that "the inquiry as to what constitutes identifying information regarding an individual must be considered not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who are familiar with the individual and his career." Id. at 438. In his email to a member of my legal staff Attorney Lee argued that disclosure ofthe identity would harm investigative efforts. While I agree, I see nothing in either Attorney Lee's response or your denial that would indicate that the identity of the complainant is known to Mr. Castegnaro, Jr. Accordingly, I find that the City is permitted to redact any portions of the agreement that could identify the complainant pursuant to Exemption (f), but all remaining portions of the complaint are public record and may not be withheld. Accordingly, the City is hereby ordered, within ten (10) day of this order, to provide Mr. Castegnaro, Jr., with the non exempt portion of the requested record. If the City maintains that any remaining portion of record is exempt from disclosure it may, within thirty (30) days provide to Mr. Castegnaro, Jr. and this office a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to that portion of the record.

Mr. John A. Carchedi SPR14/406 Page Three October 3, 2014 In the event a reconsideration appeal is honored by this office an acknowledgment will be provided to all parties, followed by a written determination by this office, to be provided within fifteen (15) business days. Requests for reconsideration filed more than thirty (30) days after the date of this letter will not be considered. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. John Castegnaro, Jr.