Todd Wallack v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20250007)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2025 SPR25/0007 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards & Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack, of WBUR, appealing the response of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Commission) to his request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, §10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 11, 2023, Mr. Wallack requested the following records: Copies of any spreadsheets/data law enforcement agencies sent to the POST Commission since November 2021, reporting the names and disciplinary information about both current and former officers. This includes both the original data POST required and the more recent submissions. Previous Appeals, In Camera Review, and Reconsideration This request was the subject of previous appeals, an in camera review and a reconsideration. See SPR23/1190 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 20, 2023); SPR23/1673 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 3, 2023); SPR23/1954 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 6, 2023); SPR24/0774 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2024, June 3, 2024, and August 6, 2024); SPR24/2523 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2024, and November 8, 2024) and SPR24/3236 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2024). In my June 3rd, August 5th, September 26th, and November 8th determinations, following in camera inspection, I found that the Commission has not met its burden to withhold the responsive records in their entirety under Exemptions (b) or (d) of the Public Records Law. In my December 16th determination, I found that the Commission must clarify whether it possesses additional records responsive to the request. Subsequently, the Commission responded on December 31, 2024. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0007, was opened as a result. 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

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/0007 Page 2 January 16, 2025 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 custodian must provide the responsive records. The Commission’s December 31st Response In its December 31, 2024 response, the Commission includes extensive excerpts from its previous responses, and argues, among other things, the following: [I]t should be clear from the Commission’s thorough prior responses that it uploaded all responsive data into the system that it described and then provided the data to [Mr. Wallack] with appropriate redactions, according to the process that it outlined. (E.g., Commission Letter of Feb. 6, 2024; Commission Letter of Dec. 15, 2024.) ... The Commission’s legal bases for making redactions should likewise have been clear from the Commission’s extensive prior correspondence. (Commission Letters.) . . . As the Commission discussed in greater depth in its prior letter: “[t]he Commission previously explained exactly how it intended to process and produce responsive data,” making clear that its “continued efforts would be labor intensive and not inexpensive”; “both [you] and the Supervisor’s Office acquiesced in those aspects of the Commission’s plan”; the Commission acted on that plan in reliance on such acquiescence; you “did not raise any objection to those aspects until after the Commission expended considerable effort and expense in implementing its plan”; and “[i]t follows that [you] should now be foreclosed from obtaining relief based on any complaint about the Commission’s process or manner of producing data.” (Commission Letter of Dec. 15, 2024.) In support of its argument, the Commission cited judicial opinions reflecting well-established common-law principles.

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/0007 Page 3 January 16, 2025 . . . For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission hopes you will recognize that its prior production of information satisfied your request and this public records matter should be closed. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Wallack contends that “the commission has still not provided any of the documents I requested above and the Dec. 31, 2024 letter does not cite any legal basis for withholding the records.” Upon review of the Commission’s December 31st response, I find that the Commission has provided no new arguments nor additional information that would affect the application of Exemptions (b) and (d) to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Mr. Wallack 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: Todd Wallack