Sue Reinert v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20251801)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 9, 2025 SPR25/1801 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Sue Reinert, of CambridgeDay, appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 16, 2025, Ms. Reinert requested a “...copy of agreements on body worn cameras between the Cambridge Police Department and the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association and the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association.” The City responded on June 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Reinert petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1801, was opened as a result. Subsequently, I learned that the City provided a further response to Ms. Reinert on July 8, 2025, which Ms. Reinert appealed. 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. 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

Seah Levy SPR25/1801 Page 2 July 9, 2024 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 her July 9, 2025 appeal, Ms. Reinert asserts, “[t]he city contends that the agreement is part of a contract being negotiated with the police unions and that disclosure would interfere with the negotiations. The city’s response doesn’t specify how disclosure of an agreement that is now in effect would harm negotiations on a new contract. Also, the contract that expired in June 2024 -- minus the agreement on body-worn cameras, because that agreement was reached in March this year -- is actually posted on the city’s website, freely available to the public. Certainly part or all of this contract is under negotiation; why is disclosure not harmful to negotiations? Finally, the agreement on body-worn cameras is a matter of public interest to the residents of Cambridge; there have been numerous comments on the issue at city council meetings and in our newspaper. Therefore I believe the city should be ordered to provide a copy of the agreement.” The City’s June 12th and July 8th Responses In its June 12, 2025 response, the City cited Exemption (d) to withhold the requested records. 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 June 12, 2025 response, the City stated, “[t]he City is denying your request for these records as they are exempt from production pursuant to Exemption G. L. c. 4 § 7(26)(d) of

Seah Levy SPR25/1801 Page 3 July 9, 2024 the Public Records law which protects records which are the subject of ongoing internal policy deliberations within an agency.” In its July 8, 2025 response, the City stated, . . . the agreements are “fact” work product under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) as the agreements relating to body-worn cameras are part of ongoing contract negotiations and deliberations between the City and the two police unions, the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association (CPPOA) and the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association (CPSOA). Both of those union collective bargaining agreements expired on June 30, 2024. In addition, the CPPOA agreement is currently under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee for Police and Fire (JLMC). As a result, if the parties continue to be unable to reach agreement on a successor contract on their own, a JLMC arbitration panel will hold a hearing and will issue a decision regarding the terms of a successor contract. Release of the body-worn camera agreements prior to these proceedings would taint the parties’ ongoing deliberative process if prematurely disclosed as they contain provisions that will be part of the successor bargaining agreements. In addition, the terms of a CPPOA successor agreement, including provisions contained in the body-worn camera agreement, are currently the subject of JLMC litigation proceedings. Thus, production of the requested “agreements on body worn cameras” at this stage is not required under Exemption (d) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law. The City is advised that any information contained in these records that is factual in nature may be subject to disclosure as Exemption (d) does not apply to such information. “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). Consequently, the City must clarify whether the records contain any factual information that can be segregated. See 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a). Further, the City did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of the records would taint any ongoing deliberative process. The City must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Reinert with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 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. Ms. Reinert may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Seah Levy SPR25/1801 Page 4 July 9, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sue Reinert