James Riva v. Old Colony Correctional Center (SPR 20232003)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 8, 2023 SPR23/2003 Gayle Tickel Records Access Officer Old Colony Correctional Center 1 Administration Road Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Tickel: I have received the petition of James Riva, appealing the response of the Old Colony Correctional Center (Center/OCCC) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 26, 2023, Mr. Riva requested the following records: [1.] Any receipts or proof of expenditure of funds for Traditional Islam … for books and or videos for Old Colony between the dates of November 1, 2022 and up to June 26, 2023. [2.] Any emails from or to [three identified staff members] regarding same books and videos, for the same time period. The Center provided a response on July 12, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Riva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2003, 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 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

Gayle Tickel SPR23/2003 Page 2 September 8, 2023 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 Center’s July 12th response In its July 12, 2023 response, the Center provided Mr. Riva with redacted emails responsive to his request. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Riva states the following: …my appeal request is two-fold: One I want any and all emails UNREDACTED to or from [identified staff members] at Old Colony Correction Center in Bridgewater from November 1, 2022 to August 3, 2023 regarding said orders. I also request any and all invoices, DOC order forms, cancelled checks and any and all verification that they processed our Masjid book and video order two years running now with zero result…[.] Unclear if additional records exist In an email received on August 30, 2023, a Center representative stated that “[t]he Incarcerated Individual received his request in full by the Department of Correction Program Services Division and OCCC.” Although the Center states that Mr. Riva has received his request in full, based on his appeal, it is unclear if the Center possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the Center must clarify if it possesses “. . . invoices, DOC order forms, cancelled checks and any and all verification. . .” as indicated in Mr. Riva’s petition. 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). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Center must clarify whether additional records exist. Burden of specificity With regard to the redacted emails provided to Mr. Riva, the Center’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Center did not specify under what exemption of the Public Records Law it intends to redact the requested records. As a result, I find that the Center did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. As stated above, the custodian bears the burden to prove with specificity any exemption that applies.

Gayle Tickel SPR23/2003 Page 3 September 8, 2023 G. L. c. 66, §10 (b)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, the Center is ordered to provide Mr. Riva 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. Riva may appeal the substantive nature of the Center’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Riva