Todd Wallack v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20252374)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 27, 2025 SPR25/2374 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); SPR25/1550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2025) and SPR25/2068 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25, 2025). In my July 25th 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 August 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s 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. SPR25/2374 Page 2 August 27, 2025 response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2374, was 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. The Commission’s August 8th Response In its August 8, 2025 response, the Commission argues the following: The Commission continues to maintain that: it has satisfied any obligations to respond to your public records request; it has fully explained its position; it has been given no reason to change its position; and it cannot conceive of any explanation for its position that has not already been provided. (Commission Letters.) However, the Commission has recently become aware of a significant issue regarding the course of proceedings in this matter. That issue should have a bearing on how, if at all, you and the Supervisor’s Office address this matter going forward. Thus, in this response, the Commission focuses on that issue and its relevance. By way of reminder, on November 25, 2024, the Commission sent you a link to a spreadsheet with almost 44,000 rows of information responsive to your public records request. (Commission Email, Letter & Linked Attachment of Nov. 25, 2024.) After you lodged an appeal, the Supervisor’s Office issued a December 14, 2024, decision that stated, “In its November 25, 2024 response, the Commission provides a responsive letter and a link to a spreadsheet. Although this office does not have access to the link contained in the Commission’s response, Mr. Wallack provided copies of the linked documents with his appeal petition.” (Supervisor

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/2374 Page 3 August 27, 2025 Letter of Dec. 16, 2024.) However, based on a July 11, 2025, response by the Supervisor’s Office to a public records request by the Commission, it appears that the statement in the decision of December 16, 2024, was incorrect, and that you, in fact, did not “provide[] copies of the linked documents with [your] appeal petition.” (Supervisor Letter of Dec. 16, 2024; Supervisor Email of July 11, 2025, attached hereto.) Rather, the documentation provided by the Supervisor’s Office suggests that you furnished it with nothing more than a set of Commission instructions and templates that included no data about officers whatsoever. (Supervisor email of July 11, 2025.) It thus seems that, for about seven months, the Commission was subject to appeal after appeal, received order after order, and generated letter after letter, all while laboring under a false impression. (Commission Letter of Dec. 31, 2024; Commission Letter of Jan. 31, 2025; Commission Letter of Mar. 10, 2025; Commission Letter & Appendix of Apr. 8, 2025; Commission Letter of May 15, 2025; Commission Letter & Appendix of July 1, 2025.) If you perceive that the Commission’s understanding of the situation is incorrect, it would behoove you to state your position and support it with documentation. Otherwise, based on the documentation it received from the Supervisor’s Office, the Commission will be left with the following impressions. First, you improperly deprived the Supervisor’s Office of the records that the Commission provided by failing to comply with the regulatory requirement to furnish a copy of the spreadsheet with your appeal. (Supervisor Email of July 11, 2025.) See 950 CMR 32.08(1)(f). Second, you knowingly allowed the Commission and the Supervisor’s Office to proceed with several rounds of letters and decisions based on a fallacy, by not correcting the record after you received the decision of December 16, 2024, knowing its statement about your “provid[ing] copies of the linked documents” was inaccurate. (Supervisor Letter of Dec. 16, 2024; Commission Letters.) Third, you continued to allow the Commission to labor under a misimpression, even after it raised concerns about being at an unfair disadvantage because it did not see what you provided to the Supervisor’s Office and it asked you to supply a copy. (Commission Letter of Dec. 31, 2024; . . . Wallack Email of Jan. 2, 2025; Commission Letter of Jan. 31, 2025. . . .) Fourth, if the Supervisor’s Office was under the misimpression that the Commission provided you with nothing more than a series of data-less instructions and templates, you reinforced its erroneous belief by bringing appeals that misleadingly suggested that the Commission had given you virtually nothing. (Wallack Email of Jan. 2, 2025 (“The commission has still not provided any of the documents I requested above and the Dec. 31, 2024 letter does not cite any legal basis for withholding the records.”); Wallack Email of Mar. 11, 2025 (“The agency declined to provide any of the documents I requested and did not cite any exemptions to withhold those records in its latest response. . . . The POST Commission hasn’t provided any documents sent by law enforcement agencies and declined to provide an explanation for why it is withholding those documents.”); Wallack Email of July 11, 2025 (“The agency has declined to provide any of the records I requested.”).)

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/2374 Page 4 August 27, 2025 And fifth, your course of conduct represents the kind of inappropriateness that warrants a determination by the Supervisor’s Office that the Commission is relieved of having to further respond to your request. Cf. M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 CMR 32.06(4)(f); 950 CMR 32.08(2)(b). As noted in an earlier determination, although the Commission has indicated that “it produced voluminous information to” Mr. Wallack, the Commission has not provided the requested records. Consequently, the Commission has not met its burden in responding to this request. See SPR25/0675 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 25, 2025). Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact records. Based on the Commission’s responses, it remains unclear which exemption the Commission is citing in order to withhold the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Upon review of the Commission’s August 8th response, as with the Commission’s previous July 1, 2025, and May 15, 2025 responses, 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