Alison Wright v. Springfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20211803)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 30, 2021 SPR21/1803 Andrea Stone Records Access Officer City of Springfield 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Ms. Stone: I have received the petition of Attorney Allison Wright of the Committee for Public Counsel Services appealing the response of the City of Springfield (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 6, 2021, Attorney Wright requested “IIU Reports for [six named] Springfield Police Officers.” The City responded on July 7, 2021, providing responsive records in redacted form. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Attorney Wright appealed, and this case 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. 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. 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

Andrea Stone SPR21/1803 Page 2 July 30, 2021 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Attorney Wright contends that: When the Legislature amended G.L. C 4, sec. 7(26)(c) in 2020 by expressly precluding records related to law enforcement misconduct investigations from what is commonly referred to as the “personnel exemption,” the Legislature clearly and unequivocally set forth its intent that all portions of an internal investigation, including the disposition sections of an internal investigation report, must also be disclosed pursuant to G.L. C 66, sec. 10. Furthermore, the City of Springfield failed to provide the specific reasons, including specific exemptions, for withholding portions of the records requested as required by G.L. C 66, sec. 10(b)(iv). The City’s July 7th Response Based on the City’s July 7, 2021 response, it is unclear which exemption the City is citing in order to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b )(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. - - - - v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The City is advised that a records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records in order to comply with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The City must clarify whether it has redacted the responsive records based on Exemption (c) or another exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain the applicability of the exemptions. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Attorney Wright with a response to her request, 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, ,,' . - ·' ~ - . Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Allison Wright, Esq.