Colman Herman v. Department of Conservation and Recreation (SPR 20221640)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 29, 2022 SPR22/1640 Michael Tencellent, Esq. Records Access Officer Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Tencellent: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 21, 2022, Mr. Herman requested: All copies of any and all communications related to Hull Artists for the period January 1, 2021 to the present. Communications include, but not limited to, emails, text messages, letters, memoranda, faxes, and/or notes. . . . Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR22/0577 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 16, 2022) and SPR22/0624 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 28, 2022). In my March 28th determination, I ordered the Department to identify the records it intends to withhold and found that the Department had not met its burden to withhold records under Exemptions (a) and (d) of the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the Department responded to Mr. Herman on July 14, 2022, providing numerous responsive records, and citing Exemptions (b), (d) and (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold others. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Herman 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 agency or 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

Michael Tencellent, Esq. SPR22/1640 Page 2 July 29, 2022 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. 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. The Department’s July 14th Response In its July 14, 2022 response, the Department cites exemptions (b), (d), and (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding and redacting responsive records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(b), (d), (n). 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 governmental 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 is to relieve agencies of the burden of assembling and maintaining for public inspection materials in which the public cannot reasonably be expected to have an interest. See Dep’t 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). The courts have interpreted the federal exemption to allow withholding of materials that, if released, could cause agency rules or regulations to be circumvented. See Fiumara v. Higgins, 572 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (1983) (internal codes are exempt where disclosure may enable outsiders to circumvent agency functions). The analysis employed by the federal courts requires a two-pronged test. Material is exempt if it is predominantly used internally and if disclosed would significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations and statutes. See Marrera v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 622 F. Supp. 51, 55 (D.D.C. 1985) (Bureau of Prisons access and identity codes were properly withheld as materials in which the public would have no legitimate interest or which would compromise security if disclosed).

Michael Tencellent, Esq. SPR22/1640 Page 3 July 29, 2022 Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In this case, under Exemptions (b) and (n), the Department states that “certain information relating to meeting access codes/dial-ins and the like has been redacted in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(b) and 26(n).” The Department’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Instead, the Department cites Exemptions (b) and (n) without any further explanation as to the exemptions’ applicability to the redacted records. 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. G. L. c. 66,

Michael Tencellent, Esq. SPR22/1640 Page 4 July 29, 2022 § 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”). Consequently, I find the Department must explain what information has been redacted pursuant to Exemptions (b) and (n), and how the exemptions would apply to the redacted information. Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure). Under Exemption (d), the Department first explains that “a policy decision has been made regarding whether to issue at this time a Request for Proposals for the building in question under DCR’s Historic Curatorship Program and, with that, certain records related to that decision are no longer considered exempt from disclosure.” The Department goes on to argue that “policy deliberations regarding planning for the building are ongoing and, therefore, some records remain exempt from disclosure and are withheld or redacted under exemption (d) of the Public Records Law.” Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what records, categories of records, or portions of records are being withheld under Exemption (d). Additionally, it is unclear how the records at issue constitute “inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters” as required by Exemption (d). See DOI v. Klamath Water Users Prot. Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 4 (2001) (indicating that a requirement for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption 5 to apply is “its source must be a Government agency”); City of Madison v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 641 F.2d 1036, 1040 (1st Cir. 1981) (finding that documents from a private party are not “intra-agency” under FOIA exemption 5); SPR95/336 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (August 14, 1995; August 31, 1995) (finding that Exemption (d) does not protect materials submitted to an agency by third parties and only applies to governmental agencies or consultants). The

Michael Tencellent, Esq. SPR22/1640 Page 5 July 29, 2022 Department must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Herman with a response to his 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, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman