Laura Crimaldi v. Springfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20181149)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Szpervisor of Records August 15,2018 SPR18/1149 Anthony I. Wilson, Esq. City Clerk City of Springfield 3 6 Court Street Springfield, MA 0 11 03 Dear Attorney Wilson: I have received the petition of Laura Crimaldi of the Boston Globe appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 5 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 18,2018 , Ms. Crimaldi requested the following records: any and all internal affairs, including officer's reports, witness interview "e summaries, and the internal affairs reports itself regarding [five identified individuals]. * any and all resumes maintained by the City of Springfield for [the identified individuals]. any and all records pertaining to changes in duty status for [the identified individuals]. = Any and all records pertaining to the end of [an identified individual's] employment with the Springfield Police Department." The City provided a response on August 1,2018 , denying access to responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, 5 7(26)(f). Unsatisfied with the City's response, Ms. Crimaldi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR1811149, was opened as a result. 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, 5 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, 5 7(26). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massac-h usetts 02108 (617) 727-2832. Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre pre@sec.state.ma.us

Anthony Wilson, Esq. Page 2 August 15,2018 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, 5 lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 51 1 (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 provided. G. L. c. 66, 5 lO(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. fi Exemption The City claims it withheld responsive records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Attorney Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244,248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 28 1,290 n. 18 (1 979). Exemption (f) invites a "case-by- case consideration" of whether disclosure "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest." See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. Burden of specificity; segregable portions Pursuant to the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, 5 1O (b)(iv) (written response must "identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . ."); see also Globe Newspaper

Anthony Wilson, Esq. Page 3 August 15,2018 Co. v. Police Cornrn'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 51 1 The City did not identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, 5 lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(~)(4)H. ere, the City withheld responsive records without identifying the records. Therefore, the City must identify the type of record(s) it has in its possession that it withheld. Further, the City's response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. While the City claims it "believes the requested records are exempt from public records disclosure" under Exemption (f), it does not explain whether the records pertain to an ongoing investigation nor describe how the requested records are part of the investigation. Also, the response does not offer any specific explanation as to how disclosure of the requested records will negatively impact an investigation nor how it would reveal confidential investigative techniques that are unique to the City. Instead, the City's response merely cites Exemption (f) without any further explanation as to the exemption's applicability to the requested records. The City is not permitted to issue a blanket denial without providing any further information with respect to the requested records. Additionally, it is unclear how disclosure of the responsive records or any segregable portion thereof "would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest" as required to withhold records under Exemption (f). Reinstein v. Police Cornrn'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 28 1,289-90 (1 979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, tj lO(a). I understand a Public Records Division staff attorney contacted your office about this appeal. Conclusion Given that the City did not meet its burden to explain how an exemption applies to the records, the requested records may not be withheld. Accordingly, the City is ordered to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide Ms. Crimaldi with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. 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 at pre@,sec.state.ma.us. The City may file a request for reconsideration of this determination within ten business days of the date of this determination letter.

Anthony Wilson, Esq. Page 4 August 15,2018 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Crimaldi