Allison Jarmanning v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20221648)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 1, 2022 SPR22/1648 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Allison Jarmanning, of the WBUR, appealing the response of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Commission) to her request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 30, 2022, Ms. Jarmanning requested, “[a]t the June 30, 2022 POST Commission, the executive director indicated seven officers were not approved for recertification. I am seeking any documents that would include the names of the officers, the departments and the reasons why they were denied, such as correspondence between the department and the officers’ police departments or individual officers.” On July 15, 2022, Commission responded. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Jarmanning petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1648 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 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. 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

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR22/1648 Page 2 August 1, 2022 Subsequently, I learned that the Commission provided a further response in which the Commission referenced a civil litigation pending in Suffolk Superior Court. See Hovsepian, Scott et al. v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Comm’n (Superior Court Docket No. 2284CV00906). It is my understanding that the requested records are related to the active and ongoing pending litigation. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. Conclusion In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of this litigation could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Allison Jarmanning