Wilson G. Dobson, P.E. v. Department of Conservation and Recreation (SPR 20170663)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 25, 2017 SPR17/663 Bridget Connelly, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Connelly: I have received the petition of Wilson Dobson appealing the response of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (Department or DCR) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, Mr. Dobson requested ''all documents including letters, memos, e-mails, reports, and meeting summaries" concerning two identified individuals within the Department relating to various aspects of concern in the Ware River Watershed. Previous appeal This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPRl 7 /173 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 15, 2017); SPRl 7 /310 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 16, 2017); SPRl 7/475 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 20, 2017). I closed SPRl 7/475 with the proviso that the Department provide a supplemental response to Mr. Dobson. The Department provided a response dated May 12, 2017 in which it provided responsive emails with portions redacted under Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Mr. Dobson petitioned this office and SPRl 7/663 was opened. Current appeal In the Department's May lih response you indicate "the withheld emails concern internal preliminary policy discussions regarding the update to the watershed's Public Access Plan." You also explain that you "reviewed the withheld emails and identified portions that may be disclosed without tainting the ongoing deliberative processes." As a result, the Department provided several pages of emails with portions redacted under Exemption ( d). Mr. Dobson requests that this office "compel DCR to produce the umedacted copies of these e-mails." One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Bridget Connelly, Esq. SPRl 7/663 Page 2 May 25, 2017 In Camera Inspection of Records It is the finding of this office that an in camera review of an unredacted copy of the responsive records withheld under Exemption ( d) would facilitate a determination as to the applicability of exemption claims made by the Department. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4 ). After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G.L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 3 84 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) ( administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Accordingly, you are hereby ordered to provide this office with an unredacted copy of the responsive records withheld under Exemption ( d) without delay. The Department may provide this office with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of an exemption to the responsive records. Please be advised that, unlike the materials provided for in camera review, any such additional correspondence would be placed in the file for this appeal and would be subject to public disclosure as a public record. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murra~ Supervisor of Records cc: Wilson Dobson