Mark Adams v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (SPR 20252536)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 9, 2025 SPR25/2536 Adrian C. Hatch Legal Assistant Executive Office of Public Safety and Security 1 Ashburton Place, Suite 2133 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Mr. Hatch: I have received the petition of Mark Adams appealing the response of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (Office/EOPSS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 27, 2025, Mr. Adams requested: [1] All emails and communications of any kind between the Board of Registry of Medicine (BORIM) and any of their agents or representatives and the Massachusetts Forensic Science Board in regards to their dealings with [an identified individual] and [an identified individual]. There was a complaint by [an identified individual] to the BORIM against both [an identified individual] and [an identified individual]. [2] All emails and communications of any kind between [an identified individual] and or [an identified individual] and anyone of any nature in regards to the [identified] matter. This should include communications with the Board of Forensic Science and any of their board members. [3] Copies of all reports that were solicited by the BORIM regarding the [identified] complaint, including any done by [an identified individual] in a professional capacity or as a board member. Any communications, notes etc. in regards to this report as well. [4] All emails, communications of any sort by anyone on the Massachusetts Forensic Science Board in regards to anything to do with the [identified] matter. [5] All emails, communications of any sort by anyone at the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security in any nature concerning, about either [identified 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

Adrian C. Hatch SPR25/2536 Page 2 September 9, 2025 individual] or anything about either the investigation at BORIM or the Forensic Science Board. [6] Copies of all emails, notes, communications, reports etc. between the BORIM and the Forensic Science board, any of its members, to include [an identified individual] and [an identified individual] and all other employees and agents to and or from [an identified individual] or any other board member or their agents. The Office responded on July 1, 2025 and July 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Office’s responses, Mr. Adams petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2536, 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Adams’ interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records.

Adrian C. Hatch SPR25/2536 Page 3 September 9, 2025 The Office’s July 1st and July 25th Responses In its July 1, 2025 response, the Office stated: Please note that the Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM) will be responding to items 1, 2, 3, and 6 as EOPSS does not maintain records responsive to these requests. As for item 4, EOPSS does not maintain records responsive to this request either …. The Forensic Science Oversight Board (FSOB) … is not a part of EOPSS … EOPSS does not have access to members’ emails as they are not EOPSS employees … BORIM will be able to search their state emails for any communications with FSOB members, but we are not able to search FSOB members’ emails…. [I]t is my understanding you will be receiving all responsive records for communications between BORIM and the FSOB. As for item 5, we have submitted this search request and are working on providing you with a response… After Mr. Adams requested an update on his request, the Office responded on July 25, 2025, “[w]e have received the email search results back from the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security (EOTSS) and are in the process of reviewing them. My plan is to get them to you next week.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Adams stated, “[the Office] absolutely [has] documents… Number 3 in particular I want fulfilled.” Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Based on the Office’s responses, in conjunction with Mr. Adams’ claim, it is unclear whether the Office possesses records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Mr. Adams’ request. 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). However, 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). Consequently, the Office must clarify whether it possesses the requested records. To the extent the Office possesses responsive records, it must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Item 5 Regarding Item 5, the Office is advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10

Adrian C. Hatch SPR25/2536 Page 4 September 9, 2025 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Adams’ request was submitted on June 27, 2025, and the Office has not provided records responsive to Item 5, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Office has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, 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 records responsive to Item 5 on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Adams with a response to the 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. Adams 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: Mark Adams