George and Jen Burden v. Lunenburg, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20250257)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 6, 2025 SPR25/0257 Lieutenant Jeffrey M. Thibodeau Records Access Officer Lunenburg Police Department 655 Massachusetts Avenue Lunenburg, MA 01462 Dear Lieutenant Thibodeau: I have received the petition of George Burden appealing the response of the Lunenburg Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2025, Mr. Burden requested, “all documents related to incident report 24LUN-555-OF and the report itself.” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/0093 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 23, 2025). In my January 23rd determination, I found that the Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. The Department responded on January 28, 2025, citing Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Burden petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0257, 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). 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

Lieutenant Jeffrey M. Thibodeau SPR25/0257 Page 2 February 6, 2025 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 January 28th Response In its January 28, 2024 response, the Department cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact information. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Burden states, “[o]ur concerns are regarding that the indication of redactions was written into the document itself not as commentary when providing the document; therefore, this means the original document was modified.” Unclear Appeal Please be advised that in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In his appeal petition, Mr. Burden has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the Department. Consequently, the basis of Mr. Burden’s appeal is unclear. Conclusion Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Burden in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Burden may wish to clarify his specific objections to the Department’s January 28th response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George Burden