Shibley, Craig v. Rutland Regional Emergency Communication Center (SPR 20150235)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords July 1, 2015 SPRlS/235 Mr. Nicholas I. DaDalt Director of Communications Rutland Regional Emergency Communication Center 242 Main Street P.O. Box 669 Rutland, MA 01543 Dear Mr. DaDalt: I have received the petition of Craig Shibley appealing the response of the Rutland Regional Emergency Communication Center (RRECC) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Shibley requested a copy of the initial bid posted either by RRECC or the Town of Rutland (Town) for the Barre Public Safety Communications Tower project. Mr. Shibley also requested to be provided with the names of the firms that submitted a bid proposal. The original request, dated July 2, 2014, was directed to Chief Donald Haapakoski ofthe Town of Rutland- Police Department (Department). ChiefHaapakoski informed Mr. Shibley that the request was forwarded to you because you are the appropriate person to provide the requested records. In an email dated April6, 2015, ChiefHaapakoski informed this office that he does "not have these files in the police department." 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 Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). 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); Flatley, OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Mr. Nicholas J. DaDalt SPR15/235 Page Two July 1, 2015 419 Mass. at 511. Further, custodians of records are required to use their superior knowledge of the contents oftheir files to assist in promptly complying with the request. 950 CMR 32.05( 4). In your written response dated April2, 2015, you provided information regarding the bid and contract-award process for the entity selected to complete the construction of the "Barre Radio Tower." In the first of two emails that you sent to Mr. Shibley on April2, 2015, you stated that RRECC often seeks vendors that are approved under a Master Blanket Purchase Order (MBPO) Contract with the Commonwealth. In addition, you stated that a vendor called Green Mountain Integrated Communication Solutions was selected to complete the construction of the Barre Radio Tower. Further, you stated that "[u]tilizing a MBPO allows a government organization to avoid the procurement/bid process." In a second email dated April2, 2015, you stated that you have provided the requested information and that "[t]he response from my office is complete." However, these responses did not clearly state whether the requested records exist and are in RRECC's possession. Accordingly, I find that RRECC has not satisfied its burden of proving with specificity why responsive records have not been made available by failing to clearly indicate whether the requested records exist and are in its possession. RRECC is hereby ordered to provide a response to Mr. Shibley confirming whether the requested record exists and are in RRECC's possession within ten (1 0) days. If the responsive records are not in RRECC' s possession, it must clearly indicate such in its response. If the responsive records are in RRECC's possession, it must provide them to Mr. Shibley within ten (10) days. IfRRECC maintains that any portion ofthe responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days, provide to Mr. hibley a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each reco d ~. y Supervisor ofRecords cc: Mr. Craig Shibley