Max Strahan v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20212449)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 7, 2021 SPR21/2449 William Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Richard Strahan, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 21, 2021, Mr. Strahan requested the following: 1. Describing RMV policy that allows and/or requires a sequence of multiple suspensions pursuant to the Three Searchargeable [sic] Events statute (“TSE Statute”) of a driver’s right to drive as a result of its committing further searchargeable [sic] events without the need for the suspended driver to reinstate his right to drive between the dates of his first and subsequent TSE Statute suspensions. 2. The full name of the current/interim director of the RMV’s Driver Control Unit, its direct landline phone number and extension, its cell phone number, its state email address, and the street location of its RMV office. 3. DOT/RMV reports – including [a named 2020 NTSB report] 4. Records indicating the date that the NH Department of Safety was first notified that the RMV suspended my right to drive in 2019. 5. All correspondence generated after 1 January 2019 between any employee of the DOT/RMV and any employee of NH Department of Safety concerning me or mentioning my name. On August 6, 2021, The Department responded. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Strahan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2449, was opened as a result. 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

William Doyle, Esq. SPR21/2449 Page 2 October 7, 2021 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. The Department’s August 6th response In its August 6th response, the Department provided responsive records for parts 2 and 3 of the request. The Department did not provide records for parts 1 and 4 of the request stating, “[w]e have no responsive records.” Regarding part 5 of the request the Department stated, “…the responsive correspondence was provided to you on July 23, as part of your previous public records request (our Reference Number P001083).” Current Appeal In his appeal petition Mr. Strahan contends the Department “…has refused to fully comply with item #5: ‘5. All correspondence generated after 1 January 2019 between any employee of the DOT/RMV and any employee of NH Department of Safety concerning me or mentioning my name.’” In light of the Department’s responses that it provided responsive records, coupled with Mr. Strahan’s petition for appeal, it is unclear what the basis of Mr. Strahan’s appeal is. Mr. Strahan is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requester’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, Mr. Strahan may wish to clarify his specific objections to the Department’s response.

William Doyle, Esq. SPR21/2449 Page 3 October 7, 2021 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Richard Strahan