Jeff Raymond v. Manchester by the Sea, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20232589)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 9, 2023 SPR23/2589 Sergeant Jennifer Gilson Records Access Officer Manchester by the Sea Police Department 10 Central Street Manchester by the Sea, MA 01944 Dear Sergeant Gilson: I have received the petition of Jeff Raymond, of the Bramanville Tribune, appealing the response of the Manchester by the Sea 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 the following records: [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 used for the information sent to POST between November 2021 and June of 2022 for the earlier-mentioned database. 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

Sergeant Jennifer Gilson SPR23/2589 Page 2 November 9, 2023 [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. Prior Appeals and Reconsideration This request was the subject of prior appeals and a subsequent reconsideration. See SPR23/1264 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (June 27, 2023 and July 31, 2023); SPR23/1889 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2023); and SPR23/2203 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 22, 2023). In my September 22nd determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden to redact records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the Department responded on October 6, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Raymond petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2589, 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. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s October 6th Response In its October 6, 2023 response, the Department states that it “. . . incorporates its prior responses to your request, by reference herein. The Town believes that it has adequately

Sergeant Jennifer Gilson SPR23/2589 Page 3 November 9, 2023 explained the bas(es) for its invocation of Exemption (c) (G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c)) to support the limited redactions made to the provided records, notwithstanding the Supervisor’s determinations.” Active 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. With respect to Mr. Raymond’s records request, these requested records are the subject of a dispute in active litigation. See Eric Mack v. Office of the District Attorney of the Bristol District No. SJC-13468. In light of the pending matter, 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 action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeff Raymond Michele E. Randazzo, Esq.