Dreslinski, Michael v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of State Police (SPR 20150767)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords December 24, 2015 SPRlS/767 Ms. Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. Department of State Police Office of the Chief Legal Counsel 470 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Attorney Zawada: I have received the petition of Michael Dreslinski appealing the response ofthe Department of State Police (Department) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dreslinski requested copies of records related theft of property at the Department on Conservation and Recreation facility at Lancaster Street in West Boylston on or about June 1, 2007. In a response dated August 6, 2015 the Department provided Mr. Dreslinski with the records it maintains responsive to his request. The basis of Mr. Dreslinski's appeal is that the Department redacted portions of the responsive records without providing any explanation for its withholding of the redacted information. 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); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Jaclyn R. Zawada, Esq. SPR15/767 Page Two December 24, 2015 Exemption (o) In a letter dated November 12, 2015, you clarified the response ofthe Department, stating, "a cell phone number for a specifically identified Ranger, was the sole item redacted from The Department's response." You cited Exemption ( o) of the Public Records Law to support this redaction. Exemption ( o) permits withholding: the home address and home telephone number of an employee of the judicial branch, an unelected employee of the general court, an agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of a political subdivision thereof or of an authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, in the custody of a government agency which maintains records identifying persons as falling within those categories; provided that the information may be disclosed to an employee organization under chapter 150E, a nonprofit organization for retired public employees under chapter 180, or a criminal justice agency as defined in section 167 of chapter 6 G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (o) I find that the November 12 explanation regarding the applicability of Exemption (o) to a home telephone number satisfies the specificity requirement in the Publi9 Records Law. Accordingly, I decline to opine upon the remaining exemptions cited b the Depirtment. cc: Mr. Michael Dreslinski