Arthur G. Grenier v. Worcester County District Attorney's Office (SPR 20202477)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records December 29, 2020 SPR20/2477 Lindsay Corcoran Records Access Officer Worcester County District Attorney’s Office 225 Main Street, G-301 Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Ms. Corcoran: I have received the petition of Artie Grenier appealing the response of the Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Grenier requested “Polices, Procedures, Written Directives, PowerPoint Slides, training materials and/or other forms of written, audio and/or video training provided to employees, vendors and/or others who are responsible for entering case management information into Damion Case Management System.” The Office responded on November 10, 2020, withholding responsive records pursuant to Exemption (b) of the Public Records Law. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Grenier petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/2477, 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

Lindsay Corcoran SPR20/2477 Page 2 December 29, 2020 The Office’s response In its November 10, 2020 response, the Office, citing Exemption (b), states that “Training materials and written policies are exempt from disclosure under the public record law because they relate to ‘internal personnel rules and practices.’” Exemption (b) Exemption (b) permits the withholding of: records that are related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary government functions requires such withholding G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(b). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (b). The general purpose of the cognate federal exemption, however, is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection matters in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have a legitimate interest. See Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 362-70 (1976) (interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for records which are "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency"); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. ----------------------------------- 427, 432 (1983) (Massachusetts Public Records Law modeled on federal Freedom of Information Act). For Exemption (b) to apply in Massachusetts, a records custodian must demonstrate not only that the records relate solely to the internal personnel practices of the government entity, but also that proper performance of necessary government functions will be inhibited by disclosure. Based on the Office’s response, I find it has not met its burden to withhold responsive records pursuant to Exemption (b). Specifically, the Office has not shown that “proper performance of necessary government functions” requires the withholding of these records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide a response to Mr. Grenier, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Lindsay Corcoran SPR20/2477 Page 3 December 29, 2020 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Artie Grenier