← Back to Search
Michael K. Hunter v. Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (SPR 20201806)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 09-24-2020
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20201806 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Michael K. Hunter concerning records held by Executive Office of Technology Services and Security, opened 09-24-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20201806
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Michael K. Hunter
- Date Opened
- 09-24-2020
- Date Closed
- 09-30-2020
- Date Request Submitted
- 05-28-2020
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 0 Business Days
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 30, 2020 SPR20/1806 Michelle Burwell Records Access Officer Executive Office of Technology Services and Security 1 Ashburton Pl #804 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Michelle Burwell: I have received the petition of Michael K. Hunter appealing the nonresponse of the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on May 28, 2020, Mr. Hunter requested “[a] complete unredacted copy of the report on the collection of data and the compliance with justice reinvestment policies as mandated in the 2018 Criminal Justice Reform bill.” 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 theNorfolk 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, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Subsequent to the intervention by a member of the Public Records Division, I learned that the Office provided Mr. Hunter a response dated September 28, 2020. 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 Michelle Burwell SPR20/1806 Page 2 September 30, 2020 Conclusion In light of the Office’s September 28th letter, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Hunter may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Michael K. Hunter