George and Jen Burden v. Lunenburg, Town of (SPR 20241025)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 19, 2024 SPR24/1025 Muir Haman Library Director Lunenburg Public Library 1023 Massachusetts Avenue Lunenburg, MA 01462 Dear Mr. Haman: I have received the petition of George Burden appealing the response of the Lunenburg Public Library (Library) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 2, 2024, Mr. Burden requested “video footage from all cameras at the Lunenburg Public Library for April 1, 2024 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.” The Library responded on April 3, 2024, denying the request, and claiming that the responsive records were withheld pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Unsatisfied with the Library’s response, Mr. Burden appealed, and this case 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. 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 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

Muir Haman SPR24/1025 Page 2 April 19, 2024 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Library’s April 3rd Response In its April 3, 2024 response, the Library cites Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding “security video footage.” See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. Under Exemption (n), the Library argues the following:

Muir Haman SPR24/1025 Page 3 April 19, 2024 Exemption (n), Security Plans/Measures, (G.L. c. 4 § 7 (26)(n)). Specifically, releasing footage from the library security cameras is likely to “jeopardize public safety or cyber security.” The disclosure of the video would reveal the locations of the cameras, and the scope and range of the cameras. This disclosure would compromise the security of the building and expose the safety procedures that are in place. Furthermore, the footage at the library contains extensive footage of minors, and we have no means of obscuring these individuals in records that might be released. This factor creates another protected exception to public records law. I understand a representative of the Library also discussed these matters by telephone with a member of the Public Records Division on April 5, 2024. Based on the Library’s response, it is unclear how the requested records resemble the records listed as examples in the statute. See PETA, 477 Mass. at 289. Particularly, it is not clear how the records resemble “blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings” that relate to security measures. It is also uncertain how the records are the type that “a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage” as required under Exemption (n). Where the requested records bear a minimal resemblance to the categories listed in Exemption (n), the burden on the custodian to prove its “reasonable judgment” that disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety is greatest. See id. at 290 (noting “inverse correlation” between the two prongs of Exemption (n) inquiry). Further, the Library did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested records pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the Library has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records are likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. See PETA, at 289-90. The Library must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the Library is ordered to provide Mr. Burden 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 the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George Burden Heather Lemieux