Steven L. Smith v. Worcester County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20200336)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords March 5, 2020 SPR20/0336 Diane M. Cook Public Records Officer Worcester County Sheriff's Office 5 Paul X. Tivnan Drive West Boylston, MA 01583 Dear Ms. Cook: I have received the petition of Steven Smith appealing the response of the Worcester County Sheriff's Office (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Upon review of the file, it appears Mr. Smith requested all information regarding a PREA grievance and investigation. The Office responded on January 30, 2020, denying access to responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (b), (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b), (c), (f), (n). Unsatisfied with the Office's response, Mr. Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/0336, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Office provided a supplemental response dated Febrnary 25, 2020. Purpose of 1·equest; identity of requestor 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. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Smith'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). · 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

Diane M. Cook SPR20/0336 Page 2 March 5, 2020 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 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 Department's January 30th and February 25th responses In its January 30, 2020 response, the Office asserts that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (b), (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law. In its February 25, 2020 supplemental response, the Office indicates that the requested records fall outside the purview of the Public Records Law, because of the exemptions cited in its January 30th response. The Office also indicates that if" ... Mr. Smith seeks information from the personnel file of an employee ... [,]" it is exempt under Exemption ( c ). The Office further notes that it provided an initial response to Mr. Smith on January 2, 2020. In its January 2nd response, the Office asserts that Mr. Smith's request is not considered a public records request, but" ... a personal records request, and as such, [it] must have completed authorization forms before any information will be released." The Office indicates that it would · begin the compilation of the records "[u]pon receipt of the properly completed authorizations" and after receipt of payment of fees calculated" ... @ $0.20 per page plus costs for any other method of providing the information requested ...." Upon review of the file, coupled with the Office's February 25th supplemental response, referencing its January 2nd response and Mr. Smith's December 18th and January 23rd requests, I find Mr. Smith must provide this office with a copy of the original request letter that is at issue in this appeal and all responses provided. Mr. Smith is reminded that when appealing to the Supervisor of Records, the requestor "shall provide to the Supervisor complete copies of all correspondence associated with the petition, including:·a complete copy of the letter by which the request was made, including in the case of electronic communications all header information indicating time, date, subject, sender and recipient email addresses ..." 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(g). As a result, this office is unable to opine any further on this matter. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Smith may petition this office for a new appeal by providing this office with the necessary documents, specifically, the original request at issue and copies of the letters by which the custodian responded.

Diane M. Cook SPR20/0336 Page 3 March 5, 2020 Sincerely, ~ r r ~ Supervisor of Records cc: Steven Smith