George and Jen Burden v. Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (SPR 20252501)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 4, 2025 SPR25/2501 Anne Camaro Executive Director Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District 270 Barnum Road Devens, MA 01434 Dear Ms. Camaro: I have received the petition of George and Jennifer Burden appealing the response of the Nashoba Valley Regional Dispatch District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 6, 2025, Mr. and Ms. Burden requested: [1] All records, communications, and internal findings related to the investigation of Dispatcher Janet James. [2] Any documentation or correspondence between NVRDD and the Lunenburg Police Department regarding our complaint. [3] Call logs, recordings, and internal notes related to our interactions with Dispatcher Casey. [4] Any internal policies or guidelines governing dispatcher conduct, complaint handling, and public inquiries. The District provided a response on August 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. and Ms. Burden petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2501, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the District provided a further response on September 4, 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). 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

Anne Camaro SPR25/2501 Page 2 September 4, 2025 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 their appeal, Mr. and Ms. Burden state, “we received a formal response explicitly denying access to the investigative documents we had requested. We are not seeking protected personnel records. We are requesting records that include internal findings, communications, and documentation relevant to our complaint, which we believe are subject to disclosure under Massachusetts Public Records Law, with appropriate redactions if necessary.” The District’s August 13th and September 4th Responses In its August 13, 2025 response, the District states: [1] NVRDD will not be releasing any records pertaining to Ms. James’ Personnel File, as such information is protected from public disclosure under Massachusetts Public Records Law, specifically Exemption (c): Personnel Records (G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)). This exemption is intended to preserve the privacy of individuals in personnel matters and ensures that sensitive employment-related records are not made public. [2] Please see attached a copy of the email I sent to [two identified individuals]. [3] Please advise on dates and times for these interactions. I have in the past provided you with multiple recordings of conversations with [an identified individual], so please advise on dates and times you are now looking for. [4] Attached is our Professional Conduct Policy. In its September 4th response in an email to this office, the District states, “[a]ll communication in this case was made verbally while addressing this matter. So there are no written records to be provided.” In a telephone call between a staff attorney of the Public Records Division and the District on September 4, 2025, the District confirmed that there are no additional responsive

Anne Camaro SPR25/2501 Page 3 September 4, 2025 records to Mr. and Ms. Burden’s request. Conclusion Where the District confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. and Ms. Burden’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. and Ms. Burden are 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: George and Jennifer Burden