Ryan, Andrew v. Boston, City of - Public Library (SPR 20150550)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords September 30, 2015 SPR15/550 Ms. Melina Schuler Chief of Communications Boston Public Library 700 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Dear Ms. Schuler: I have received the petition of Andrew Ryan of the Boston Globe appealing the response of the Boston Public Library (Library) to his June 9, 2015 request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Ryan requested copies of records indicating "[w]hether or not each individual [listed by Mr. Ryan] has a library card with the Boston Public Library." Mr. Ryan further requests, "[i]fthe individual listed ... has a library card, I would like the date the card was last used." In a response dated June 23, 2015 the Library denied his request in its entirety citing to the statute enabling cities and towns to establish public libraries. See G. L. c. 78, § 7. In a July 8, 2015 email, Mr. Ryan sought to clarify his request. Mr. Ryan asked the Library to reconsider its denial, stating his belief that the language of the statute "only applies to records that reveal both the identity AND the intellectual pursuits (i.e., borrowing history) of the cardholder." Mr. Ryan explained that he did not "ask for borrowing history," he requested names of cardholders and most recent date of use," which do "not reveal the substances of any 'intellectual pursuits."' In a July 8 response you stated the "City's position remains that names of cardholders and the dates that they have used their cards are exempt under the public records law." You cited both the statutory exemption to the Public Records Law as well as the underlying statute. Exemption (a), the library statute, and the former Exemption (k) of the Public Records Law Whereas the Library has cited a statute to mandate nondisclosure, a review of the statutory exemption is required. Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Ms. Melina Schuler SPR15/550 Page Two September 30, 2015 specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26) (a) A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney General v. Collector ofLynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This office cannot order disclosure of records if a statute mandates nondisclosure. General Chemical Corp. v. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 287 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). The statute that enables cities and towns to establish public libraries provides in pertinent part: That part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four. G. L. c. 78 § 7 The sentence above was added into the statute as Section 2 of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1988. In Section 1 of Chapter 180, the Legislature repealed what was then known as Exemption (k) to the Public Records Law. The former Exemption (k) exempted from disclosure: That part of the registration or circulation of every public library which reveals the identity of the borrower. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (k) (repealed by Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1988, approved July 25, 1988) A review of the Acts of 198 8 support the contention posited by the City that the responsive records are exempt from disclosure by statute. Accordingly, whereas I find the Library has met its burden of specificity to show the applicabili . fthe underlying statute to the responsive records, I will consider this administrative appeal 1 s d. cc: Mr. Andrew Ryan