Nathaniel Trumbull v. Steamship Authority (SPR 20250072)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2025 SPR25/0072 Sean F. Driscoll Communications Director Steamship Authority Massachusetts Department of State Police 50 Maple Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Mr. Driscoll: I have received the petition of Nathaniel Trumbull appealing the response of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Steamship Authority (Authority/SSA) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 7, 2024, Mr. Trumbull requested: … [A] copy of SSA records of all free or discounted rides on SSA vessels by SSA Port Council members and SSA Board members during the period of February 15, 2024 to October 31, 2024. Please remove individual Port Council and SSA Board members’ names from those records you share with me in order to be in compliance with [Section 4(k) of the Authority’s Enabling Act]. The Authority provided a response on November 22, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Trumbull petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0072, 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. 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

Sean F. Driscoll SPR25/0072 Page 2 January 16, 2025 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Trumbull’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. The Authority’s November 22nd Response In its November 22, 2024 response, the Authority informed Mr. Trumbull that it was withholding responsive records pursuant to Section 4(k) of the Authority’s enabling act, as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In his January 9, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Trumbull objected to the Authority’s withholding of responsive records, arguing that he was not seeking any information associated with specifically named customers. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is

Sean F. Driscoll SPR25/0072 Page 3 January 16, 2025 restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. The Authority’s enabling act provides in pertinent part: Section 4. The Authority is hereby authorized and empowered … (k) To maintain the confidentiality of all information relating to specifically named customers using the authority’s reservations system including, but not limited to, passenger names, home addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, credit and account data and the dates and times of their reservations and sailings. Such information shall not be a public record, although it may be used and disclosed by the authority as necessary in connection with the appropriate conduct of its operations and in connection with law enforcement activities. The authority shall provide to a customer requesting any such information, all information that the authority has pertaining to that customer. The authority shall obtain the express, written consent of a customer before releasing customer information to a third party for commercial or noncommercial purposes. Enabling Act of the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, 1960 Mass. Acts 701, as amended. In its November 22, 2024 response, the Authority stated with regard to its withholding of responsive records: The information [withheld] refers to specific reservations and reservation activity of a specifically named customer of the Authority that uses the Authority’s reservation system. Section 4(k) explicitly authorizes and empowers the Authority to “maintain the confidentiality of all information relating to specifically named customers using the authority’s reservations system”; it further provides that “[s]uch information shall not be a public record”; and it also requires the Authority to “obtain the express, written consent of the customer before releasing customer information to a third party for commercial or noncommercial

Sean F. Driscoll SPR25/0072 Page 4 January 16, 2025 purposes.” Regardless of whether the provided information contains the names of the customer in question, your request remains “information relating to specifically named customers.” As the Authority does not have the “express, written consent” of any customer to provide any information relating to it, we cannot provide you with any such information. Based on the Authority’s response, I find that the Authority has met its burden to withhold responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Trumbull is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nathaniel Trumbull