Josh Coffin v. Nantucket County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20220188)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records February 10, 2022 SPR22/0188 Sheriff James A. Perelman Nantucket County Sheriff’s Office 20 South Water Street, PO Box 419 Nantucket, MA 02554 Dear Sheriff Perelman: I have received the petition of Josh Coffin of MuckRock News appealing the response of the Nantucket County Sheriff’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Coffin requested various categories of records related to Title IV-D programs and services. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR21/2853 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 9, 2021); SPR21/3104 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 8, 2021); SPR22/0058 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 26, 2022). The Office provided a response on January 26, 2022. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Coffin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/0188, was opened as a result. Mr. Coffin’s appeal of the Office’s January 26th response was based on his contention that the Office failed to provide missing documents. 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 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

Sheriff James Perelman SPR22/0188 Page 2 February 10, 2022 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 Office’s January 26th Supplemental Response In its January 26, 2022 supplemental response, the Office cited Exemptions (c) and (o) for the redactions of documents provided to Mr. Coffin. In addition the Office explained, “that other documents [Mr. Coffin] requested which [the Office] told [Mr. Coffin] are not in [the Office’s] possession and after a diligent search [the Office] can confirm that [the Office] are certain [the Office] does not have them.” In his appeal, Mr. Coffin stated the Office failed to provide an identified employee’s “Employee Criminal History Systems Board (CORI) form as promised from the 12/7/2021 NCSD response.” Mr. Coffin also believes that there “[a]ppears to be possibly missing pages.” No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Based on the January 26th supplemental response and a conversation with this office, the Office confirmed it provided all responsive requested records in the Office’s possession. Therefore, I find the Office has provided all responsive records in its possession to Mr. Coffin. The Office has no duty to create records in response to Mr. Coffin’s requests. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Coffin is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies).

Sheriff James Perelman SPR22/0188 Page 3 February 10, 2022 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Josh Coffin, MuckRock News Jack Collins, Esq. Sandra Daub