Seth Kershner v. Pittsfield, City of - Police Department (SPR 20192395)

The Commonwealth of Mas~achusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords December 12, 2019 SPR19/2395 Kerri Striebel City of Pittsfield - Police Department 39 Allen Street Pittsfield, MA O1 201 Dear Ms. Striebel: I have received the petition of Seth Kershner appealing the response of the City of Pittsfield Police Depaiiment (Depaiiment) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Kershner requested the following records from August 1, 2018 until the date of the request: 1. All after-action reviews documenting each time the Special Response team deployed. 2. Monthly training reports or memos, summarizing the monthly training activities and physical fitness tests for members of the SRT team. . The Department provided a response on October 18, 2019, which included the responsive records in redacted format. The Department indicates the redactions were made pursuant to Exemptions (a), (b), (c), (n), (f), G), and (p) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (b), (c), (n), (f), (j), (p); G. L. c. 6, § 167; G. L. c. 66, § lOB. Unsatisfied with the scope of the redactions within these records, Mr. Kershner petitioned this office and this appeal was opened. 111 camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the exemption claims made by the Department to redact portions of the responsive records, the Department must provide this office with un-redacted copies of a representative sample of the responsive records for in camerc, inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4 ). The Department may wish to provide a detailed index to explain which exemption applies to each redaction within the records submitted. After I complete my review of the records, I will return them to the Department's custody and issue an issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of 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

Kerri Striebel SPR19/2395 Page 2 December 12, 2019 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, 384 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. Order Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of a representative sample of the responsive records without delay. The Department may provide this office with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of its exemption claims 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, ~r~ Supervisor of Records · cc: Seth Kershner