Commonwealth Transparency v. Department of Revenue (SPR 20251901)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 8, 2025 SPR25/1901 Roger H. Randall, Esq. Counsel to the Commissioner Litigation Bureau Massachusetts Department of Revenue 100 Cambridge Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Randall: On June 30, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Department of Revenue (Department) seeking relief from the obligation to produce responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, I understand that the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, OpenCommonwealth.org (requestor). G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 25, 2025, the requestor sought the following records: The last 50 (fifty) public records requests immediately preceding this request made upon the Massachusetts Department of Revenue AND where the response was authored by [a named individual]; - the Public records request, itself; - all responses, specifically including, but not limited to those authored by a [the named individual]; - all responsive records, if any, provided in response. Identity or Status of the Requestor In its petition, the Department argues the following: Opencommonwealth.org is not the name of a natural person or corporation. . . . Sections 10A(a), (c) & (d)(4) of G.L chapter 66 speak in terms of the “requestor.” A fair interpretation of that word is that the requestor must be a natural person or a corporation, and not simply a website name, an online platform, or an invented name. OpenCommonwealth.org is not a person or a corporation. There is no record of this entity in the Mass. Secretary of State’s Corporations records. Mr. 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

Roger H. Randall, Esq. SPR25/1901 Page 2 July 8, 2025 DeLacey’s apparent use of his preferred platform. OpenCommonwealth.org, without identifying himself, is an apparent attempt to deceive both the recipient at the Department of Revenue and the Supervisor of Public Records. . . . Upon information and belief, OpenCommonwealth.org is simply the online platform on which Mr. Brian DeLacey posts his news articles, political campaign statements, or lists of his prior complaints. The Department is advised that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. Given this, the requestor may not be required to identify himself or herself as a condition of obtaining access to the requested records. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976) (“the statute . . . extends the right to examine public records to ‘any person’ whether intimately involved with the subject matter of the records he seeks or merely motivated by idle curiosity”). Accordingly, the requestor’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. Petitions for an Extension of Time and Relief from the Obligation to Provide Records Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id.

Roger H. Randall, Esq. SPR25/1901 Page 3 July 8, 2025 The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Relief In its June 30, 2025 petition, the Department “asks the Supervisor to relieve the Department of Revenue of any response to the request that is block-quoted above.” In support of its petition, the Department argues the following: The public-records law may not be used to abuse or harass governmental agencies or officials. See, e.g., Erickson v. Exec. Office of Envtl. Affairs, 2006 Mass. Super Lexis 476, 2006 WL 3010949 (the plaintiff’s request for documents under G.L. c. 66, section 10, was a continuation of her pattern of harassment). The Department of Revenue should not be burdened for one minute with Mr. DeLacey’s apparent disappointment stemming from the non-existence (except for the responsive document, which the DOR produced) of records responsive to his request. His new request . . . (submitted anonymously by Mr. DeLacey through his preferred platform, OpenCommonwealth.org), for the last 50 public-records- law requests received by the DOR that were responded to by the particular lawyer at the DOR who had responded to his Malden-related public-records request, is obviously an attempt by Mr. DeLacey to intimidate and harass the DOR and that particular lawyer simply because communications by the DOR with the City of Malden (containing certain words) that Mr. DeLacey wishes existed do not exist or because he is attempting to bully the DOR into “investigating” something that the DOR has no legal obligation to “investigate.” If Mr. DeLacey thinks that something is somehow amiss in the municipal government of the City of Malden, then he should address his requests to the municipal government of the City of Malden . . . or to the Inspector General. He absolutely should not be harassing or attempting to intimidate the Department of Revenue or one of its employees. Based on the information provided in the Department’s petition, I find that the Department has not demonstrated that the requests are frivolous and not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, as required by G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to grant the Department’s request for relief from the obligation to provide responsive records.

Roger H. Randall, Esq. SPR25/1901 Page 4 July 8, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: OpenCommonwealth.org