Joshua Carrier v. Old Colony Correctional Center (SPR 20242262)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 23, 2024 SPR24/2262 Gayle Tickel Records Access Officer Old Colony Correctional Center One Administration Road Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. Tickel: I have received the petition of Joshua Carrier appealing the response of the Old Colony Correctional Center (Center) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 8, 2024, Mr. Carrier requested the following records: [1.] OCCC menus being used as of May 8, 2024 including ADA (CCHH), Kosher, Regular, Bland, etc.[;] [2.] IBF (Z-1) Account November 2023 - April 2024[.] Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR24/1673 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 5, 2024), SPR24/1689 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 18, 2024), and SPR24/1879 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 11, 2024). In my July 11th determination, I ordered the Center to clarify its claims under the Criminal Offender Record Information Act (CORI), operating through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, for redacting the responsive record. Specifically, I noted it was unclear how the redacted portions of the responsive record constituted “information recorded in criminal proceedings that are not dismissed before arraignment,” as described in G. L. c. 6, § 167. Subsequently, the Center responded on July 15, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Center’s July 15th response, Mr. Carrier petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2262, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Center provided a further response to this office on August 12, 2024. 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 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 SPR24/2262 Page 2 August 23, 2024 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) (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…”); 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). The Center’s July 15th and August 12th Responses In its July 15, 2024 response, the Center reiterates its previous June 21, 2024 response, stating, “[a]s the responsive [record] [contains] CORI of identifiable inmates as defined in G.L. c. § 167, pursuant to G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), CORI is exempt from disclosure under the public records statute as records that are ‘specifically or by necessary implication exempted to [sic] disclosure by statute.’” In its further response to this office on August 12, 2024, a representative for the Center states, “[t]he response will be the same, the [requestor] is requesting account information that belongs to other Incarcerated Individuals which he cannot have.” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the exemption claims made by the Center to withhold the records, the Center must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the Center’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c).

Gayle Tickel SPR24/2262 Page 3 August 23, 2024 This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Center is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Carrier