Edward P. O'Brien v. Department of Correction (SPR 20252418)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 28, 2025 SPR25/2418 Kate Silvia Director of Communications Massachusetts Department of Correction 50 Maple Street, Suite 3 Miilford, MA 01757 Dear Ms. Silvia: I have received the petition of Edward P. O’Brien appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 10, 2025, Mr. O’Brien requested: [A] copy of and posting information for . . . [t]he posting bid for the work that was completed in or around June of 2024 for the installation of asphalt around the Walking Track at NCCI-Gardner. This job is associated with the payment from the NCCI-Gardner Inmate Benefit Account - Z1 Club Account – disbursement of [an identified] check [number], to City Sealcoating Inc. for $73,274.00. The Department provided a response on June 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. O’Brien petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2418, 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. See 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 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

Kate Silvia SPR25/2418 Page 2 August 28, 2025 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. See 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 Deparment’s June 11th Response In its June 11, 2025 response, the Department provided multiple responsive records. Current Appeal In his August 15, 2025 appeal, Mr. O’Brien asserts that the Department did not provide all records responsive to his request and notes that he wants “to see the whole process from the beginning, of the bid paperwork that different companies have a chance to bid on a job initiated by the DOC.” He further states, “[a]nything over 10 thousand is supposed to be up for bid.” Records in Existence 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). Additionally, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In a telephone conversation between this office and and a representative of the Department on August 28, 2025, the Department confirmed that all responsive records have been provided. Conclusion Where the Department has confirmed it does not possess additional responsive records, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. O’Brien 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Kate Silvia SPR25/2418 Page 3 August 28, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Edward P. O’Brien