Wallack, Todd v. Andover, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20140672)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords February 20, 2015 SPR14/672 Chief Patrick Keefe Andover Police Department 32 North Main Street Andover, MA 01810 Dear Chief Keefe: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Andover Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lO(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Wallack requested copies of"any incident or internal affairs reports relating to an incident" occurring on March 11, 2013. 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). In a letter to Mr. Wallack, Town Counsel Joshua R. Coleman of the law firm Collins, Loughran, & Peloquin, P.C., responded on behalf of the Department and stated that responsive records were being withheld from disclosure as "personnel documents." G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). In a subsequent email to an attorney on my staff, Attorney Coleman stated that responsive records were also being withheld pursuant to Exemption (f). G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(£). I find that neither the response or the email by Attorney Coleman act to satisfy the Town's burden to cite, with specificity the application of an exemption to the responsive records in responding to a request for public records. The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). The response by the Town to Mr. Wallack did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Accordingly, the Town is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and Regulations it must provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a records OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma.us/pre

Chief Patrick Keefe SPR14/672 Page Two February 20, 2015 custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. Accordingly, the Town is hereby ordered, within ten (10) days ofthis order, to provide Mr. Wallack with the requested records. If the Town maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days provide to Mr. Wallack a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. This administrative appeal is now closed. a illiams Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Todd Wallack Mr. Joshua R. Coleman, Esq.