Q. Doe v. Municipal Police Training Committee (SPR 20251829)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 8, 2025 SPR25/1829 Tori Koch Paralegal Specialist Municipal Police Training Committee 42 Thomas Patten Road Randolph, MA 02368 Dear Ms. Koch: I have received the petition of Q. Doe (requestor) appealing the response of the Municipal Police Training Committee (Committee/MPTC) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 23, 2025, the requestor sought, “…public records concerning [identified] individuals affiliated with All State Constables, Inc., located at …Cabot Place… Stoughton, MA 02072, for the period of January 1, 2022, to present[.]” Specifically, the requestor sought the following documentation for each of the identified individuals: [1] Names, official titles or positions held within All State Constables, Inc. [2] Transcripts and documentation of training received through or reported to the Municipal Police Training Committee. [3] Training Verification Letters. [4] Copies of surety bonds and insurance records on file or reported to the Committee. [5] Salary or compensation records, if maintained by your office. [6] Documentation verifying authority, certification, and official status as constables or agents during the time period requested. The Committee responded on June 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Committee’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1829, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Committee provided a supplemental response on July 1, 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 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

Tori Koch SPR25/1829 Page 2 July 8, 2025 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. The Committee’s June 24th Response In its June 24, 2025 response, the Committee stated, “…please be advised that the MPTC has no responsive records.” Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor stated, “I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Public Records review this matter and determine whether the MPTC’s denial is lawful and appropriate. If found lacking, I ask that an order be issued requiring MPTC to conduct a more thorough search and provide a lawful response.” In its July 1, 2025 supplemental response, the Committee stated: After conducting an additional search for the requested records, the MPTC was able to locate five pages of training records relating to one of the three individuals referenced in the request. Although the records are outside the time frame specified in the request, I’ve attached them to this email… [the identified individual’s] social security number, date of birth, and home address have been redacted for privacy purposes. Regarding all other aspects of your request, the MPTC conducted a search of its police training records and did not locate any responsive records… Please be advised that, prior to the passage of police reform in December 2020, the MPTC was not statutorily required to maintain training records for law enforcement officers. Even after the passage of police reform, the MPTC’s statutory recordkeeping requirements only apply to constables who are certified by the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission. A search of the certification information posted publicly on the POST Commission’s

Tori Koch SPR25/1829 Page 3 July 8, 2025 website indicates that none of the three above-named individuals are currently certified by the POST Commission. In reply to the Committee’s supplemental response, the requestor stated, “[i]t appears you only supply information for [an identified individual] and not the other two employe[es]. Insurance and surety information is still missing.” No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, 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). Conclusion Given that the Committee has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to the request, and this office has no authority to compel the Committee to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If the requestor is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Q. Doe