Renee Mahler v. Department of Mental Health (SPR 20250720)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 26, 2025 SPR25/0720 Misael Garcia Records Access Officer Department of Mental Health 25 Staniford Street Boston, MA 02114 Dear Mr. Garcia: I have received the petition of Renee Mahler appealing the response of the Department of Mental Health (Department/DMH) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 4, 2025, Ms. Mahler requested the following: [C]opies of organizational charts and all records related to any changes to those charts for Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital under the CEO[’s] . . . authority, including all organizational levels under [the CEO]. Specifically, I request the following specific to May 2022 through February 4th, 2025: [1] All organizational charts maintained by HR, IT (for example, charts shown in intra or external web pages and/or Microsoft Outlook/Exchange servers), or any other Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital department[;] [2] Any and all records documenting changes to these organizational structures, including but not limited to internal memos, reports, email communications, or other documentation reflecting modifications to organizational structure within any organization under the CEO. In an email to Ms. Mahler dated February 13, 2025, the Department stated, “DMH is still processing your request and will need additional time to respond to your request. Would you be agreeable to providing us with a two-week extension, making the response and responsive records due to you on March 4, 2025?” Ms. Mahler agreed to the extension in an email to the Department on the same date. In email dated February 21, 2025, regarding Item 2 of the request, the Department stated that it conducted a search for responsive records that “yielded 344 emails.” The Department 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

Misael Garcia SPR25/0720 Page 2 March 26, 2025 explained, “[t]his volume of records will place a burden on DMH staff to comb through and would create a significant delay in providing records in a timely manner” and asked Ms. Mahler to “consider narrowing the timeline of [her] request down to a year, as opposed to the three years . . . included in the search.” Following additional correspondence, in an email dated February 24, 2025, Ms. Mahler indicated that she would “prefer to receive the emails[.]” In an email on the same date, the Department again asked Ms. Mahler to consider narrowing her request. In an email responding to the Department also on the same date, Ms. Mahler modified Item 2 of her request and stated, “[p]erhaps IT could provide a high-level spreadsheet containing the basic metadata for the emails (i.e., columns for to/from/cc and bcc; date sent, subject text).” Following the modification, in an email dated March 3, 2025, the Department requested “an additional 10 business day extension, making the response and responsive records due . . . on March 14, 2025[.]” Ms. Mahler agreed to the extension in an email to the Department on March 4, 2025. Subsequently, the Department responded on March 12, 2025, providing multiple responsive records. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. Mahler petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0720, 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 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 12th Response In its March 12, 2025 response, regarding Item 1 of the request, the Department provided a zip file titled “Responsive Record.zip” containing two one-page PDFs, the first named, “Rehab Org Chart_1.8.2025” and the second, “WRCH Org Chart - 9-24-24 – Copy[.]” The Department

Misael Garcia SPR25/0720 Page 3 March 26, 2025 explained that the production of the PDFs “completes DMH’s response to [the] request” and that it “has not redacted or withheld any documents from this response.” Regarding Item 2 of the request, the Department provided a 93-page responsive spreadsheet titled, “[a] List [sic] of email documents that may refer to changes [or] modifications to organizational structures within any organization at Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital under the CEO . . . including all organizational levels under [the CEO], from May 2022 through February 4th, 2025[.]” The spreadsheet contained the following column headers: “Subject or Title[,]” “Sender or Created by[,]” “Recipients In To line[,]” “Recipients In Cc line[,]” “Recipients In Bcc line[,]” and “Sent[.]” The Department further indicated that the provision of the above-named spreadsheet “completes DMH’s response to [the] request” and that it “has not redacted or withheld any documents from this response.” Current Appeal In her March 14, 2025 appeal petition to this office, regarding Item 1 of her request, Ms. Mahler contends the following: The organizational chart provided for 2025 (Rehab Org Chart_1.8.2025 . . . ) does meet the request’s requirements, but the organizational chart provided for 2024 (WRCH Org Chart - 9-24-24 - Copy . . . ) does not, as it is a higher level org chart and doesn’t show the Rehab Organization under [a named individual]. Therefore, DMH RAO has provided no Organizational Charts for 2022-2024 that are responsive to my request. Ms. Mahler additionally asserts the following in regards to Item 2 of her request: The initial response to my request was deemed a burden to the DMH RAO’s staff due to 344 responsive emails being discovered and the need to review them all. While I suggested that a provision of a spreadsheet with email metadata would help narrow down the request, including an offer to extend the response deadline, I did not agree that a response of only this spreadsheet would constitute a complete response to this portion of the PRR. . . . If the DMH RAO is not going to provide the opportunity to narrow down this request, then I would like to ask the Supervisor of Public Records to direct the office of the DMH RAO to provide all 344 emails in full. . . . Based on Ms. Mahler’s claim above, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional records responsive to Item 1 of the request. If the Department does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). The Department must clarify this matter.

Misael Garcia SPR25/0720 Page 4 March 26, 2025 Further, where Ms. Mahler modified Item 2 of her request on February 24, 2025, to “a high-level spreadsheet containing the basic metadata for the emails (i.e., columns for to/from/cc and bcc; date sent, subject text)” and the Department responded by providing records responsive to her modified request on March 12, 2025, I find that the basis of Ms. Mahler’s appeal regarding Item 2 of her request is unclear. Ms. Mahler is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. Mahler with a response to her 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: Renee Mahler