Emma Rindlisbacher v. Taunton, City of - Law Department (SPR 20250676)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 24, 2025 SPR25/0676 John P. Joyce, Lieutenant Records Access Officer Taunton Police Department 23 Summer Street Taunton, MA 02780 Dear Lieutenant Joyce: I have received the petition of Emma Rindlisbacher appealing the response of the Taunton 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 March 3, 2025, Ms. Rindlisbacher requested, “... emails (to/from) [an identified individual] regarding the following topics: True Diversity, True Collective, T.R.U.E. Diversity, T.R.U.E. Collective, TOGETHER Summer Camp.” The Department responded on March 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Rindlisbacher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0676, 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. 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 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 John P. Joyce SPR25/0676 Page 2 March 24, 2025 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 March 11th Response In its March 11, 2025 response, the Department withheld responsive records pursuant to Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her March 3, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Rindlisbacher stated, “[t]he documents I have requested are in the public interest and should be released in their entirety without any redactions.” Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure). In its March 11, 2025 response, the Department states: As indicated above, the records at issue are part of an inter-agency deliberative process. The final decision as embodied in the public reports concerning these entities is a public record, but the Department considers the internal communication and review process that precedes the final, completed reports to be covered by the deliberative process exemption cited above. For the above reasons, under exemption (d) to the Public Record Law the Department does not consider the records you are requesting to be public records and the Department will decline to release the records.

Lieutenant John P. Joyce SPR25/0676 Page 3 March 24, 2025 Based on the Department’s response, it is unclear what deliberative process remains ongoing or what legal or policy matters may be involved. It is additionally uncertain how disclosure of the records would taint any ongoing deliberative process. As a result, the Department has not sufficiently explained how the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (d). The Department is reminded that “reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based” are not permitted to be withheld. See G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(d). Further, it is not clear whether segregable portions of the records can be provided. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-290 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Rindlisbacher with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Rindlisbacher may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emma Rindlisbacher