Mallory Hanora v. Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (SPR 20231902)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William FrancisGalvin,Secretary oftheCommonwealth PublicRecords Division ManzaArthur SupervisorofRecords August 30,2023 SPR23/1902 ChristopherD.Guerin, Esq. Officeofthe GeneralCounsel DivisionofCapital Asset Management &Maintenance OneAshburton Place,15thFloor Boston,MA02108 DearAttorney Guerin: Ihave receivedthepetition of MalloryHanoraappealing theresponse oftheDivision of Capital Asset Management & Maintenance (Division)to a request for public records. See G. L.c. 66,§10A; seealso 950C.M.R.32.08(1).On April 19,2023,Ms. Hanorarequested“meeting notesfrombi-weekly meetingsbetweenHDR,DOC, andDCAMM fromJanuary 12023- present”for theprojectnamed “Study andDesignof Correctional CenterforWomen.” PreviousAppeal Thisrequest was thesubjectofa previousappeal. See SPR23/1648Determination ofthe SupervisorofRecords (August1,2023). Inmy August 1stdetermination, Iordered theDivision toprovide Ms. Hanorawith asupplementalresponse. Subsequently, the Divisionresponded on August 15,2023,providingresponsive records andciting Exemptions (d)and(n) ofthePublic RecordsLaw for redactingtherecords.See G.L.c.4,§7(26)(d),(n). Unsatisfiedwith the Division’s response,Ms. Hanorafurtherappealed, andthis case wasopened as aresult. The PublicRecords Law ThePublic RecordsLaw strongly favors disclosurebycreatinga presumption that all governmental recordsare public records.G.L.c. 66,§10A(d); 950C.M.R.32.03(4).“Public records”is broadly definedto includeall documentary materialsor data,regardlessof physical formorcharacteristics, made orreceived byanyofficer oremployee ofanyagency or municipalityof theCommonwealth, unless fallingwithin astatutory exemption.G. L.c.4, §7(26). Itisthe burdenof therecordscustodianto demonstrate theapplicationof anexemptionin order to withholdarequested record.G.L.c. 66,§10(b)(iv);950C.M.R. 32.06(3);see alsoDist. OneAshburton Place,Room1719,Boston, Massachusetts 02108• (617)727-2832 •Fax:(617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre•pre@sec.state.ma.us

ChristopherD.Guerin, Esq. SPR23/1902 Page2 August 30,2023 Att’yforthe NorfolkDist. v.Flatley,419Mass.507,511(1995)(custodian hastheburden of establishingthe applicability ofanexemption).To meetthespecificity requirementacustodian mustnot only citean exemption,butmust alsostatewhy theexemptionappliesto thewithheld orredacted portionof theresponsive record. The Division’sAugust 15thResponse InitsAugust 15,2023response,the Divisionprovidesredacted copies ofmeeting minutesand citesExemptions (d)and (n) ofthe PublicRecords Law forredacting theresponsive records.SeeG. L.c.4,§7(26)(d),(n). Exemption(d) Exemption (d)allowsthewithholding of: inter-agency orintra-agencymemoranda orlettersrelatingto policy positions beingdeveloped bytheagency; but thissubclause shall not applyto reasonably completedfactual studies or reportsonwhich thedevelopmentofsuch policy positionshasbeen ormaybe based G.L.c.4,§7(26)(d). Exemption (d)is intendedto avoidpremature releaseofmaterials that couldtaint the deliberative process ifdisclosed.Its applicationis limitedto recommendations onlegaland policy mattersfoundwithin anongoing deliberative process. SeeBabets v.Sec’yof theExec. OfficeofHuman Servs.,403Mass.230, 237n.8(1988). Factualreports whichare reasonably completeand inferences whichcan bedrawn fromfactual investigations, even iflabeled as opinionsorconclusions, are not exemptasdeliberative orpolicy making materials. G.L.c. 4, §7(26)(d); seealso Envtl.Prot. Agency v.Mink,410U.S. 73,89(1973) (purely factual matters usedin thedevelopment ofgovernmentpolicy are subject to disclosure). Under Exemption(d), theDivision argues thefollowing: Thisexemption appliesto inter-agencyor intra-agencymemoranda or letters relatingto policy positionsbeingdeveloped, in this instance,policy relatingto corrections.The meetingsfor which thesubjectminutes weredeveloped were non-publiceventsattended byrepresentatives ofenumerated stateagenciesanda privatefirm procuredfor thepurposeof providingconsultant servicesto assist in policy developmentrelatedto correctional serviceswithin theCommonwealth. As thesubjectofincarceration has beenunder intensescrutiny,including documenteddisruptive behavior byanti-incarcerationadvocatesat theofficesof theCommonwealth’s consultant andelsewhere, prematuredisclosure ofthe requestedcommunications couldtaint theongoing deliberative process, the avoidanceofwhich is theunderlyingpurpose oftheexemption.[The Division] note[s]that all reasonablycompleted factual reports andsegregable portionsof

ChristopherD.Guerin, Esq. SPR23/1902 Page3 August 30,2023 therecordsnot shieldedbythe exemptionwerepreviouslyprovided.Further, [the Divisionis] informed astudy bytheconsultant in concertwith thepolicy positionsbeingdeliberatedremains in development.[The Division] understand[s] completion ofsuchwork, including policy currentlyunder development and deliberation,is anticipated inQ4 of2023afterwhich timetherequested records are expectedto beavailable. Exemption(n) Exemption (n)appliesto: records,including, but notlimited to,blueprints, plans, policies,procedures and schematic drawings,whichrelate to internal layout andstructural elements, securitymeasures,emergency preparedness, threat orvulnerability assessments, oranyother recordsrelatingto thesecurity orsafety of personsorbuildings, structures, facilities,utilities, transportation,cybersecurity orother infrastructure locatedwithin thecommonwealth, thedisclosureof which,in thereasonable judgmentof therecordcustodian, subjecttoreview bythesupervisorof public recordsunder subsection(c) ofsection 10ofchapter66,is likelyto jeopardize public safetyor cybersecurity. G.L.c.4,§7(26)(n). Exemption (n)allowsfor thewithholdingof certainrecordswhichifreleased would jeopardizepublic safety. Thefirst prongofExemption (n)examines “whether,and to what degree,therecord soughtresembles therecords listedas examples inthestatute;”specifically, the“inquiry is whether,andto whatdegree, therecord isonea terrorist ‘would findusefulto maximizedamage.’”People for theEthicalTreatment ofAnimals (PETA) v.Dep’t ofAgric. Res.,477Mass.280,289-90(2017). Thesecond prongof Exemption(n) examines“thefactual andcontextual support for the propositionthat disclosure oftherecord is‘likelyto jeopardize publicsafety.’” Id.at289-90. ThePETA decisionfurtherprovides that “[b]ecause the recordscustodianmust exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making thatdetermination, theprimaryfocus onreviewis whetherthe custodianhasprovided sufficient factual heftfor thesupervisorofpublic records orthe reviewing courtto conclude that areasonable personwould agree with thecustodian’s determinationgiventhe contextoftheparticularcase.”Id. PETA alsoprovidesthat “[t]hese two prongsofexemption(n) mustbe analyzedtogether, becausethere is aninverse correlationbetweenthem. Thatis, themore therecordsought resembles therecordsenumeratedin exemption(n), thelower thecustodian’s burdenin demonstrating‘reasonable judgment’ andvice versa.”PETA,at290. Under Exemption(n), theDivision argues thefollowing:

ChristopherD.Guerin, Esq. SPR23/1902 Page4 August 30,2023 Intheinstant matter,[the Division]redacted orwithheld certain itemsdiscussing securitymeasures,policies, andvulnerability assessments,thevery recordswhich are thefocus ofthislegislation. See PeoplefortheEthical Treatment ofAnimals, Inc.v.Department ofAgricultural Resources,477Mass. 280(2017)at289 (requiring adetermination whetherandto whatdegree therecordsought resembles therecordslisted asexamples in thestatute).Asthesubject records mirrorthose identified inthe statute,theburden of demonstratingexerciseof reasonablejudgment in determiningthat disclosure islikely to jeopardizepublic safety isatits lowest.Id.at290. Publication ofcorrectional facilitysecurity measuresandrelatedelements inherentlyrisk aiding threat actorsand jeopardizes physicalsecurity ofCommonwealth assets,employees,the public atlarge, and indeedtheinmates ofthesefacilities.[The Division] refrain[s] frommore specifically describingthe securitymeasuresredacted assuchdisclosure would underminethe purposeof theexemption.Itis thereforethe determinationof[the Division]that disclosure oftheredacted portions addressingsecurity measures, policy, andvulnerabilitiesatCommonwealth correctional facilitiesis likelyto jeopardizepublic safety andsecurity. InCamera Inspection Inorder to facilitate adeterminationas tothe applicability oftheExemptions(d) and (n) claimsmadebythe Divisionto redacttheresponsive records,theDivision mustprovide this officewith un-redactedcopies ofthe responsiverecordsfor in camera inspection.See950 C.M.R.32.08(4). After Icomplete myreviewofthe records,Iwill return therecordsto the Division’s custodyand issue anopinion onthepublic orexempt nature oftherecords. Theauthorityto requirethe submissionofrecordsfor anin camera inspectionemanates fromtheCode of MassachusettsRegulations. 950C.M.R.32.08(4); seealso G.L.c.66,§1. Thisoffice interpretsthein camera inspectionprocess to beanalogous to that utilized bythe judicial system.See Rockv.Mass.Comm’nAgainst Discrimination,384Mass.198,206(1981) (administrativeagencyentitled deference in theinterpretationof itsownregulations). Records are not voluntarilysubmitted, but ratherare submittedpursuant toan order bythisofficethat an incamera inspectionis necessary to makeaproper finding. Recordsare submittedforthe limitedpurposeof review.This officeis notthecustodian ofrecordsexamined in camera, therefore, anyrequest madeto this officeforrecords being reviewedin camera will bedenied.See 950C.M.R.32.08(4)(c). Thisoffice hasalong history ofcooperationwith governmental agencieswith respectto incamera inspection.Custodians submitcopies oftherelevant recordsto this officeupona promiseofconfidentiality.This officedoesnot release recordsreviewed in camerato anyone underany circumstances.Upona determinationof thepublic recordstatus, recordsreviewed in camera are promptlyreturned tothe custodian.Tooperatein anyother fashionwould seriously impedeourability to functionandwould certainly affect ourcredibility withinthe legal

ChristopherD.Guerin, Esq. SPR23/1902 Page5 August 30,2023 community.Please beaware, anycoverletter submittedto accompanytherelevant records may besubjectto disclosure. Order Accordingly, theDivisionis orderedto provide thisofficewith un-redacted copies ofthe responsiverecords forin camera inspectionwithoutdelay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur SupervisorofRecords cc:MalloryHanora