Morisi, Esq., Mark v. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (SPR 20140687)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords January 6, 2015 SPR14/687 Mr. Thomas T. Walsh Claims Manager Pioneer Valley Transit Authority 2808 Main Street Springfield MA, 01107 Dear Mr. Walsh I have received the petition of Mark G. Morisi, Esq. appealing the response of the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Attorney Morisi requested on behalf of his client, copies of PVT A records concerning an event which occurred on or about September 20, 2014 involving a PVTA bus on which he claims his client suffered an injury. In a response dated October 14, 2014 the PVTA withheld responsive records stating for what it describes as PVTA policy. In its response the PVTA asserts that any responsive records are exempt by statute pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) (a). The PVTA simply cites to the exemption without any further explanation. Please note that the personal status of Attorney Morisi's client in the matter in question does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requesters. Access to a record requested pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requester. See Bougas v. Chief of Police ofLexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). 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). Public records, and any non-exempt, segregable portions thereof, are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (2008 ed.); see also Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281,289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are not blanket in nature). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma.us/pre

Mr. Thomas T. Walsh SPR14/687 Page Two January 6, 2015 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 PVTA did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Accordingly, the PVTA is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and its Regulations it must provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. The PVTA has yet to meet its burden in proving with specificity why responsive records have not been made available. Accordingly, the PVTA is hereby ordered, within ten (1 0) days of this order, to provide Attorney Morisi with the requested records. If the PVTA maintains that the responsive records are exempt it must provide to Attorney Morisi an explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies o each record. This administrative appeal is now closed. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Mark G. Morisi, Esq.