Henry Clay Manly v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Department of Correction (SPR 20160784)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords October 13, 2016 SPR16/784 Mr. Christopher Fallon Director of Communications and Administrative Resolution Department of Correction Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center P.O. Box 8000 Shirley, MA 01464 Dear Mr. Fallon: I have received the petition of Hemy Clay Manly appealing the response of the Department of Corrections (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Manly requested portions of documents referred to as "103 DOC 513 Inmate Accountability" and "103 DOC 527 Security Risk Inmates." In a response dated September 1, 2016, the Department denied access to his request, claiming that the responsive record may be withheld under the Fair Information Practices Act (FIP A). G. L. c. 66A. Mr. Manly appealed. I understand an attorney on my staff contacted your office about this appeal. FIP A and the Public Records Law are to be construed to work together consistent with the legislative purpose. 32 Op. Atty Gen. Mass. 157, 160 (May 18, 1977). FIPA cannot provide a basis for withholding the requested information unless the records fall within a statutory exemption to the definition of public records. See Allen v. Holyoke Hosp., 398 Mass. 372, 379 (1986) (stating that "determining whether the record sought is protected by FIPA depends on whether the record is a public record pursuant to G.L. c. 4, §7 Twenty-sixth, and subject to the disclosure provisions of G.L. c. 66A"). FIP A, by itself, cannot justify withholding information. A custodian must first specifically explain how the withheld information is exempt from the Public Records Law. Once a record is found to be exempt from the definition of public records, FIP A may also operate to restrict disclosure. The Department has not proved that the withheld information is exempt under FIP A because it did not explain how the information is exempt from the definition of public records. As a result, the Department failed to meet its obligation of explaining with specificity how the withheld information is exempt from disclosure. See Reinstein v: Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Mr. Christopher Fallon SPR16/784 Page2 October 13, 2016 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion It is my understanding that, based upon your contact with a member of my staff, the Department intends to clarify its response to Mr. Manly's request. Accordingly, I will consider this appeal closed with the proviso that the Department provide Mr. Manly with a written response to the request, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office t pre@sec.state.ma.us. Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Henry Clay Manly