Peter C. Contos v. Massachusetts National Guard (SPR 20221128)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 24, 2022 SPR22/1128 Timothy F. Cullen Records Access Officer Executive Office of Public Safety & Security Military Division 2 Randolph Road Hanscom AFB, MA 01731 Dear Mr. Cullen: I have received the petition of Peter C. Contos appealing the response of the Executive Office of Public Safety & Security, Military Division (Division) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 19, 2022, Mr. Contos requested the addresses and points of contact for the custodian of records for two Massachusetts military installations. Claiming to have received no response, Mr. Contos appealed, and this case was opened as a result. Previous Appeal This request is similar to the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/0167 Supervisor of Records Determination (February 2, 2022). In my February 2nd determination, I closed SPR22/0167 in light of the Division confirming that it had previously provided all responsive records to Mr. Contos. 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 agency or municipality 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. 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

Timothy F. Cullen SPR22/1128 Page 2 May 24, 2022 Att’y 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Contos states that the Division has “failed to respond to [his] request for their addresses and a point of contact.” The Division’s Response In its May 16, 2022 email to this office, a copy of which was provided to Mr. Contos, as in its January 27, 2022 letter addressing the previous request, the Division again confirms that it has provided Mr. Contos with the requested information. Further, the Division reiterates that “individual installations do not have records custodians” and again provided the relevant contact information. Conclusion Where I have previously addressed the claims raised in this appeal, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Contos 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Peter C. Contos (by mail)