Todd Wallack v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20252068)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 25, 2025 SPR25/2068 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards & Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack, of WBUR, appealing the response of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 11, 2023, Mr. Wallack requested the following records: Copies of any spreadsheets/data law enforcement agencies sent to the POST Commission since November 2021, reporting the names and disciplinary information about both current and former officers. This includes both the original data POST required and the more recent submissions. Previous Appeals, In Camera Review, and Reconsiderations This request was the subject of previous appeals, an in camera review, and reconsiderations. See SPR23/1190 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 20, 2023); SPR23/1673 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 3, 2023); SPR23/1954 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 6, 2023); SPR24/0774 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2024, June 3, 2024, and August 6, 2024); SPR24/2523 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2024 and November 8, 2024); SPR24/3236 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2024); SPR25/0007 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025 and February 24, 2025); SPR25/0675 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 25, 2025 and May 1, 2025) and SPR25/1550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2025). In my June 16th determination, I found that the Commission had provided no new arguments nor additional information that would affect whether the Commission had met its burden in responding to the request. Subsequently, the Commission responded on July 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2068, was 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

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/2068 Page 2 July 25, 2025 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. 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Wallack states that “the agency has declined to provide any of the records I requested.” The Commission’s July 1st Response In its July 1, 2025 response, the Commission states that it “incorporates all of its prior responses and other communications herein.” The Commission further explains, among other things, the following: The Commission continues to assert that the format of its record production, and the process that it utilized in preparing that production, were allowable under the public records law. The Commission also continues to maintain that: when it described the resource-intensive process that it was pursuing, and the format in which it planned to produce records, both you and the Supervisor’s Office acquiesced; the Commission relied on that acquiescence in proceeding with its process; and any objection to the process and format of the Commission’s record production has been waived. The Commission thoroughly explained its reasoning as to these matters in its prior correspondence. (Commission Letter of Dec. 15, 2024; Commission Letter of Dec. 31, 2024.) Neither [Mr. Wallack] nor the Supervisor’s Office has offered any developed

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/2068 Page 3 July 25, 2025 argument as to why the Commission’s reasoning should be found invalid, or has even directly addressed that reasoning. Thus, the Commission has been given no grounds for changing its position, and it continues to maintain that it has already satisfied all obligations it may have had under the public records law with respect to your request. Moreover, the Commission cannot presently conceive of any additional explanation for its position that it has not already provided. Upon review of the Commission’s July 1st response, as with the Commission’s previous May 15th response, I find that the Commission has provided no new arguments nor additional information that would affect whether the Commission has met its burden in responding to the request. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is again ordered to provide Mr. Wallack with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order and the previous orders, 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. Mr. Wallack may further appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Failure to comply with this order may result in referral of this matter to the Office of the Attorney General. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Wallack