Florence Tawiah v. Worcester Regional Transit Authority (SPR 20190524)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 19, 2019 SPR19/0524 Dennis J. Lipka Worcester Regional Transit Authority 60 Foster Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Mr. Lipka: I have received the petition of Florence Tawiah appealing the response of the Worcester Regional Transit Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on November 7, 2018, Ms. Tawiah requested the following records: "l. Bus monitoring/Video of Route 30 Bus, Inbound trip of driver passing [a named individual]. 2. Bus monitoringNideo of Route 26 Bus, Inbound trip of [ a named individual] getting on the bus. 3. Video Of Downtown Hub bus terminal and video of the buses that the white male driver tells Black driver that the driver left me behind because she is like you. 4. The complaint of incident that was filed with the [Authority] on or about September 17,2018. 5. The email that was sent to the Director of Risk management and city hall of driver incident report of description of the incident." Previous appeals The requested records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPRl 8/2070 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 7, 2019) and SPR19/0091 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 29, 2019). In my January 29th determination, I ordered the Authority to provide Ms. Tawiah with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. Following the January 29th determination, the Authority provided a response on February 14, 2019, indicating that the requested records are not the property of the Authority. Unsatisfied with the Authority's response, Ms. Tawiah petitioned this office and this appeal, SPRl 9/0524, was opened as a result. 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

Dennis J. Lipka SPR19/0524 Page2 March 19, 2019 Purpose of request; identity ofrequestor 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 requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Tawiah's purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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, § 1O (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 provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Authority's March Ji" response Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that on March 18, 2019, the Authority provided Ms. Tawiah with a supplemental response indicating that it intends on providing her with copies of the video recording pertaining to this request, and also providing a fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, whereas this appeal was opened because of the Authority's failure to provide responsive records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Ms. Tawiah may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority's response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Dennis J. Lipka SPR19/0524 Page 3 March 19, 2019 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Florence Tawiah