Joanna M. Boody v. Holyoke, City of - City Clerk (SPR 20222302)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 26, 2022 SPR22/2302 Brenna Murphy McGee, MMC City Clerk/Records Access Officer City of Holyoke 536 Dwight Street, Room #2 Holyoke, MA 01040 Dear Ms. McGee: I have received the petition of Joanna Boody appealing the response of the City of Holyoke (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 9, 2022, Ms. Boody requested the following records: [1] Policies regarding the cleaning, inspection, and reporting of firearms and all other weapons. If there’s no policy, I assume there might be forms that HPD uses to document the cleanings, etc. I would request blank copies of each form. [2] Actual inventory of all firearms and other weapons held by the Holyoke Police Department … [3] … audits on these weapons have there been in the last 5 years[.] Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/2042 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 20, 2022). The City responded on October 6, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Boody petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2302, 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). 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

Brenna Murphy McGee SPR22/2302 Page 2 October 26, 2022 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. The City’s October 6th Response In its October 6, 2022 response, the City stated, “[f]urther records review has resulted in the discovery of the following information. The City of Holyoke issued a purchase order number 20114196 on April 11, 2011 for the purchase of 105 Glock 45 caliber pistols. In that order, a credit for the 150 Glock pistols that Holyoke PD turned in as a ‘trade-in’ was also made. Upon receipt, the firearms were issued to each sworn member of the department and/or re-issued based upon retirements, promotions and other personnel changes. As of this date and based upon the review, no further orders for or acquisition of pistols has been made since the 2011 purchase … The Holyoke Police Department continues to express its concern that further release of weapons related information. Such releases may jeopardize its ability to protect public safety. The release of additional information could allow violent elements to make strategic decisions based upon knowledge of the HPD weaponry or defensive options. For this reason, the City of Holyoke must respectfully decline any further expansion.” Upon review of the City’s response, the City did not provide supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of this information would jeopardize its ability to protect public safety. The City must clarify this matter. Further, the City’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The City must identify what records it has in its possession, custody or control that are responsive to Ms. Boody’s request. As a result, I find that the City did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Boody with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Brenna Murphy McGee SPR22/2302 Page 3 October 26, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joanna Boody