Jeff Raymond v. Pembroke, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20231686)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 4, 2023 SPR23/1686 Chief Richard MacDonald Chief of Police Pembroke Police Department 80 Center Street Pembroke, MA 02359 Dear Chief MacDonald: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Pembroke Police Department (Department) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 16, 2023, Mr. Raymond requested “any responsive documents and/or communications concerning your municipality’s police department and its compliance with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s duties under Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020 to create a ‘database listing complaints against police officers,’ as detailed below.” Specifically, Mr. Raymond requested: [1.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between November 2021 and June of 2022, providing the information requested by the POST Commission for its “database listing complaints against police officers” planned for May of 2022…. [2.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications between a) your police department and/or your town officials and b) the POST Commission in regard to the database planned for May of 2022 as detailed above and/or compliance with the reporting for said database between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [3.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with this mandate between the dates of July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, broadly construed…. [4.] Information concerning “complaints against police officers” issued in the calendar year 2022 and through March 31, 2023, preferably in the same format 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

Chief Richard MacDonald SPR23/1686 Page 2 August 4, 2023 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database…. [5.] A copy of the document your police department sent to the POST Commission as sent to the POST Commission, likely sent between December 1, 2022 and April 9, 2023, to comply with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission.”... [6.] Copies of any relevant responsive communications within or between a) your police department and b) your municipal administration in regard to this database and/or compliance with the “2023 POST Commission Disciplinary Records Resubmission” described above. Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/1352 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 30, 2023). In my June 30th determination, I found that the Department had not met its burden of specificity in responding to the records request. The Department provided a response on July 17, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1686, 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. 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 Department’s July 17th response In its July 17, 2023 response, the Department provided Mr. Raymond with communications and redacted spreadsheets responsive to his request, and withheld additional records. The Department stated the following:

Chief Richard MacDonald SPR23/1686 Page 3 August 4, 2023 Indeed, the Supervisor has expressly determined that Items 1, 2, and 5 of your request were covered by the pending litigation. See, e.g., SPR23-1264 (June 27, 2023). It is the Department’s position that the information submitted to POST that would be responsive to your request numbered 4, is similar to the information contained in Items 1 and 5 of the request, which the Supervisor has already declined to opine on given the pending litigation involving the POST Commission, as cited in her recent determinations. Therefore, it is the Department’s position that Item 4 is similarly covered by the pending litigation and is therefore appropriate to withhold from disclosure. With that said, the Department notes that there are no records responsive to Items 3 and 6 of your request. With respect to records requested under Items 1, 2, 4, and 5, the Department has determined that i[t] will provide you with copies of responsive records, at no charge as a courtesy, with limited information redacted pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Specifically, the Department has redacted disciplinary information from the officer-specific documentation submitted to POST. In balancing these interests, the Department has concluded that it is appropriate to redact certain personnel information from the enclosed charts under Exemption (c). In light of the pending litigation, the Supervisor has previously declined to opine on a Department’s invocation of Exemption (c) in this instance. See SPR23- 1383 (July 6, 2023). Items 3 and 6 No duty to create records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law the Department 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). Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an

Chief Richard MacDonald SPR23/1686 Page 4 August 4, 2023 unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’” may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). For example, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee,” may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). The courts have also discussed specific categories of records that may be redacted under Exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Exec. Office of Admin. and Fin., Suffolk Sup. No. 11-01184-A (June 14, 2013). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Regarding Items 1, 2, and 5 of the request, based on a July 17, 2023 letter from the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST), new information has come to light in which I find that records responsive to these Items are not related to the pending litigation.

Chief Richard MacDonald SPR23/1686 Page 5 August 4, 2023 As such, based upon the update to Exemption (c) where the amendment states that this “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” it is unclear how the requested records can be redacted. Further, based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what type of records it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (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 . . .”). Therefore, the Department must identify the types of records in its possession that it withheld. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Raymond with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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. Mr. Raymond may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond