William Cormier v. Abington Town Manager (SPR 20201523)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 14, 2020 SPR20/1523 Leanne M. Adams Town Clerk Town of Abington 500 Gliniewicz Way Abington, MA 02351 Dear Ms. Adams: I have received the petition of William Cormier, Jr. appealing the response of the Town of Abington (Town) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on July 14, 2020, Mr. Cormier appealed the redactions of the requested “police management study … released on 7/13/2020 at the board of selectman meeting …” Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/1251 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 6, 2020). In my determination, I found the Town did not meet its burden to withhold records and ordered it to provide a response in compliance with the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Cormier appealed and SPR20/1523 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, § 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, § 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, § 10(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. 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

Leanne M. Adams SPR20/1523 Page 2 September 14, 2020 The Town’s August 19th Response In its August 19th response, the Town produced the requested Police Department General Management and Operations Study, with redactions pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Cormier stated, “[i]t is my belief and position that exemption (c) does not apply to this public study.” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Town's claims under Exemption (c) to redact certain portions of the records, the Town must provide this office with un- redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of 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. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay.

Leanne M. Adams SPR20/1523 Page 3 September 14, 2020 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: William Cormier, Jr.