Jon C. Little v. Massachusetts Parole Board (SPR 20171249)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary ofthe Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords September 19, 2017 SPR17/1249 Amanda Early, Esq. Legal Counsel Massachusetts Parole Board 12 Mercer Rd Natick, MA 07160 Dear Attorney Early: I have received the petition of Jon Little appealing the response of the Massachusetts Parole Board (Board) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Little requested copies of documents related to the parole hearing of an identified individual. On June 9, 2017, the Board responded to his request stating that the Board is processing the request as a "personal records request" and would provide responsive records "in due course." In a letter dated September 7, 2017, Mr. Little wrote this office appealing the Board's determination that his request was not a public records request and asked for his receipt of the requested documents expedited. As a result, this appeal was opened on September 11, 2017. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(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(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); 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). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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

Amanda Early, Esq. SPR1711249 Page 2 September 19, 2017 If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Purpose of request; identity of requester Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requester. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Little's purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. It should be noted that when an individual has a unique right of access to the requested record through statutory, regulatory, judicial or other applicable means, the administrative appeal process shall not apply. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(a) The Board's June 9th Response In the Board's response, it explains that Mr. Little's "request is not a public records request pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66," but rather a "personal records request" as he is requesting "materials from [his] own parole file which would not be available to any member of the general public without express consent and written authorization." The Board further states that Mr. Little "will receive responsive documents in due course." Upon the intervention of a member of the Public Records Division staff, this office learned through conversations with a representative of the Board, that Mr. Little has a unique right of access to the requested information pursuant to the Board's regulations 120 C.M.R. 500.06 and 120 C.M.R. 500.03, also known as "Dissemination of Evaluative Information to the Offender" and "Dissemination of CORI to the Subject" respectively. "Dissemination of Evaluative Information to the Offender" states that: Upon written request by the offender or his or her representative, with verified written authority, the Parole Board shall disseminate evaluative information generated by it unless disclosure of such information falls under one of the exemptions listed in 120 CMR 500.06(2) 120 C.M.R. 500.06. "Dissemination of CORI to the Subject" states that:

Amanda Early, Esq. SPR17/1249 Page 3 September 19, 2017 Each individual shall have the right to inspect CORI which refers to him or her as provided in M.G.L. c. 6, § 175. Such dissemination shall be in accordance with 803 CMR 7.10: Dissemination of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) to a Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), and subject to redaction if necessary to protect anyone from harm or to protect the source of information 120 C.M.R. 500.03. Accordingly, whereas Mr. Little has a unique right of access through regulatory process of the Board, I decline to continue any further review of his petition. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jon Little