Joseph F. Hennessey v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20202006)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 2, 2020 SPR20/2006 Janice Thompson, Esq. City of Worcester Law Department City of Worcester 455 Main Street, Room 303 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Thompson: I have received the petition of Attorney Joseph Hennessey appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on June 19, 2020, Attorney Hennessey requested five categories of records pertaining to 12 named officers, including disciplinary records. Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/1716 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 1, 2020). In my October 1st determination I found the City intended on providing Attorney Hennessey with a supplemental response. The City provided said response on October 16, 2020. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Hennessey petitioned this office, and SPR20/2006 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 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

Janice Thompson, Esq. SPR20/2006 Page 2 November 2, 2020 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. Current Appeal In his October 17, 2020 appeal, Attorney Hennessey states “…our requests of paragraphs 1(d), 2 and 3have not been fulfilled and have been wrongfully withheld and must be produced.” Attorney Hennessey identifies documents he contends have not been produced for these categories. Attorney Hennessey further contends “[o]n 9/14/20 the City did produce responses but failed to provide responses to paragraphs 1 a,b,c,g,h ; 4 and 5.” A staff attorney of the public records division reached out to the City regarding Attorney Hennessey’s appeal. The City confirmed it has no additional responsive records to Attorney Hennessey’s request. Based on the foregoing, it is unclear what the basis of Attorney Hennessey’s appeal is. Specifically, it is uncertain which records Attorney Hennessey claims have been “wrongfully withheld” and the basis of his contentions, including any exemption claims to which Attorney Hennessey objects. Attorney Hennessey is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Attorney Hennessey must describe his specific objections to the City’s responses. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Hennessey, Esq.