Todd Wallack v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20250675)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2025 SPR25/0675 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 Reconsiderations This request was the subject of previous appeals, an in camera review, and reconsiderations. 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); SPR24/3236 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2024) and SPR25/0007 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025 and February 24, 2025). In my February 24th determination, I declined to reverse the previous determination, where I found that the Commission had provided no new arguments nor additional information that would affect the application of Exemptions (b) and (d) to the responsive records, and I ordered the Commission to provide Mr. Wallack with a response to his request. Subsequently, the Commission responded on March 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0675, 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. SPR25/0675 Page 2 March 25, 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Wallack contends that “[t]he agency declined to provide any of the documents I requested and did not cite any exemptions to withhold those records in its latest response.” He goes on to argue that “The POST Commission hasn’t provided any documents sent by law enforcement agencies and declined to provide an explanation for why it is withholding those documents.” The Commission’s March 10th Response In its March 10, 2024 response, the Commission states the following: The latest decisions of the Supervisor’s Office focus solely on the notion 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.” (Supervisor Letter of Jan. 16, 2025; Supervisor Letter of Feb. 24, 2025.) Yet the Commission is no longer invoking Exemptions (b) and (d). It has had no need to do so since it produced voluminous information to [Mr. Wallack] in response to [his] request months ago. And it called attention to that fact in requesting reconsideration of the January 16 decision of the Supervisor’s Office. (Commission Letter of Jan. 31, 2025.) But the Supervisor’s Office simply “decline[d] to reverse [its] findings in the January 16th determination” and ordered the Commission to respond yet again. (Supervisor Letter of Feb. 24, 2025.) Accordingly, the Supervisor’s Office has not given the Commission any reason to

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/0675 Page 3 March 25, 2025 “provide[] . . . new arguments [or] additional information.” (Supervisor Letter of Jan. 16, 2025; Supervisor Letter of Feb. 24, 2025.) The Commission thus reasserts that, for the all the reasons discussed in its prior correspondence, it has satisfied any obligations that it had with respect to the request at issue. (Commission Letters.) Burden of Specificity In this case, although the Commission indicates that “it produced voluminous information to” Mr. Wallack, but has not provided the requested records, I find the Commission has not met its burden in responding to this request. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Commission’s March 10th response, it is unclear which exemption the Commission is citing in order to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a 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”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). 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