Joseph Dwinell v. Mass Cultural Council (SPR 20180972)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords July 13, 2018 SPRlS/972 Greg Liakos Mass Cultural Council 10 St. James Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02116 Dear Mr. Liakos: I have received the petition of Joe Dwinell appealing the response of the Mass Cultural Council (Council) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1 OA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on June 18, 2018, Mr. Dwinell requested" ... all detailed receipts from the Council's P-Card expenditures at Davio's Restaurant from June of 2017 to May of 2018." Mr. Dwinell also requested" ... a list of who has access to the P-Card and who used it for these Davio's purchases. And was there a specific purpose for all these expenditures at Davio's." The Council provided responses on June 19, 2018, and June 26, 2018, which included responsive records. Contending that he has not received all records responsive to his request, Mr. Dwinell petitioned this office and this appeal, SPRl 8/972, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Council provided a supplemental response on July 10, 2018. 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, § lOA(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, § lO(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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be 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

Greg Liakos SPR18/972 Page 2 July 13, 2018 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. The Council's June 19th and June 26th responses In its June 19, 2018 response, the Council indicates that it provided "[a] document listing each of the expenditures ... , along with a written explanation of each and the staff member to whose P-Card it was charged[;] [a] folder of hard copies of each of these expenditures that included [the Council's] Fiscal Expenditure Form ... [;] [and] [h]ard copies of paper receipts from the vendor for each of these expenditures." The Council indicates that the information provided was fully responsive to Mr. Dwinell's request. In its June 26, 2018 response, the Council notes that it attached a summary of items Mr. Dwinell requested and indicates that Mr. Dwinell could come in to view hard copies of the individual receipts and related expense request forms. While this appeal was pending, the Council provided a supplemental response on July 10, 2018, indicating that it has fully responded to Mr. Dwinell's June 18th request for "detailed receipts." The Council, however, indicates that Mr. Dwinell apparently wanted "itemized receipts" which he had not requested and therefore was advised to make a new public records request for "itemized receipts." The Council indicates that Mr. Dwinell made this new request on June 29, 2018. As such, the Council asserts that it has not denied Mr. Dwinell access to responsive records and would provide a response to Mr. Dwinell's June 29th public records request within the time requirements provided under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Mr. Dwinell confirmed in a telephone conversation that he has made a new public records request for "itemized receipts." Accordingly, whereas Mr. Dwinell has indicated that he has made a new request for records, coupled with the Council's supplemental response indicating that it intends to provide a response within the statutory time frame, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. Mr. Dwinell may appeal the substantive nature of the Council's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Sincerely, ~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Joe Dwinell