Clarence Risher v. Worcester County Sheriff's Office (SPR 20252127)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 25, 2025 SPR25/2127 Anna Laukaitis Public Records Access Officer Worcester County Sherriff’s Office 5 Paul X. Tivnan Drive West Boylston, MA 01583 Dear Ms. Laukaitis: I have received the petition of Clarence Risher appealing the response of the Worcester County Sherriff’s Office (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 6, 2025, Mr. Risher requested the following: [1] [R]ecords of the following dates for each Deputy of the Worcester County Sheriff, present or past: 1. appointment as Deputy 2. swearing in as Deputy 3. end of appointment, after which the person was no longer a Deputy 4. start of any employment while appointed as Deputy 5. end of any employment while appointed as Deputy [2] [R]ecords uniquely identifying each such Deputy (e.g. name, badge number) and unambiguously associating them with the dates in question. [3] [R]ecords identifying the employer for any employment of a Deputy. [4] [R]ecords of the reason and/or method (termination, resignation, retirement, etc) for the end of each appointment and/or employment. The Office responded on July 18, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Risher petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2127, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the Office provided a supplemental response on July 21, 2025. 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

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2127 Page 2 July 25, 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 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 Office’s July 18th Response In its July 18, 2025 response, the Office provided “a list of the individuals who have been appointed as Deputy Sheriffs by the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office for 2025,” and stated: [The Office] received a public records request… related to all appointed sworn Deputy Sheriffs from the beginning of time to the present. As this request did not include a specific date range, the record holder is suggesting a reasonable modification of the scope of the request to records related for the preceding year reflecting those appointed as sworn Deputy Sheriffs of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Office. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Risher stated: The response suggests a modification to the request, reducing the scope to only Deputies sworn in 2025, which I do not find reasonable. I am seeking records of the appointment(s) and swearing(s) of every currently sworn Deputy, many of whom were sworn in previous years… The provided record also makes no mention of start or end of employment… The provided record also provides no unique identifier for each person… I understand that WCSO is under no obligation to produce new records. I am requesting existing records that contain the requested information. I am, however, comfortable with the general format of the provided response if it were extended to contain all of the requested

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2127 Page 3 July 25, 2025 information… if that is the most convenient and expedient way for WCSO to provide a complete response without revealing confidential information… In a supplemental response on July 21, 2025, the Office provided additional responsive documents and stated: In response to the broad request of Mr. Risher, the WCSO suggested a reasonable modification of providing this year’s (2025) list of sworn Deputy Sheriff’s captured by way of a spreadsheet. Despite Mr. Risher’s request for additional information (badge number and start and end date of employment) in his original request, the spreadsheet provided did not track such information in regards to sworn Deputy Sheriffs. Notwithstanding that, in order to resolve this matter, the WCSO hereby attaches the list of Deputy Sheriffs from 2021 through 2024. In reply to the Office on the same day, Mr. Risher stated, “[the Office] still [hasn’t] provided any way I can uniquely identify these officers. They still haven’t provided any employment information, so I can tell whether a particular Deputy was employed by WCSO or not… They still haven’t provided any decommissioning dates for retired / fired / transferred / etc Deputies.” Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Where the request pertains to “each Deputy of the Worcester County Sheriff, present or past,” Mr. Risher may wish to clarify the scope of his request with the Office regarding the specific record(s) he is seeking and provide the specific details he provided to this office in his appeal petition. This office encourages Mr. Risher and the Office to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (an agency shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Additionally, based on the Office’s responses, it is unclear whether the Office possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the Office must clarify whether it possesses the requested documentation Mr. Risher claims is missing from the records he was provided. 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). To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Office must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Office must provide the remaining responsive records on a rolling basis.

Anna Laukaitis SPR25/2127 Page 4 July 25, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Risher with a response to his 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. Mr. Risher may appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Clarence Risher