Joshua Levin v. University of Massachusetts Boston (SPR 20252929)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2929 DeWayne Lehman Director of Communications University of Massachusetts – Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 Dear Mr. Lehman: I have received the petition of Joshua Levin, of The Mass Media, appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts, Boston (UMass) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 31, 2025, Mr. Levin requested the following records: [1] UMass Boston Police Department dispatch logs from the week of March 23-29, 2025[;] [2] UMass Boston Police Department timesheets from the week of March 23-29, 2025[;] [3] Any invoices from (or receipts for payment to) the UMass Boston Police Department to any entity, including inter-departmental invoices, for services rendered during the week of March 23-29, 2025[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/2439 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 2, 2025). In my September 2nd determination, I found that UMass’ response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. UMass merely cited Exemption (n) without any explanation of the applicability of the exemption to the responsive records On September 23, 2025, UMass provided a response. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Levin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2929, was opened as a result. 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

DeWayne Lehman SPR25/2929 Page 2 October 20, 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. UMass’ September 23rd Response In its September 23, 2025 response, UMass cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law to withhold the records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Levin’s concern is with the withholding of timesheets as requested in Item number 2. Mr. Levin states, “I appeal UMass’ complete denial of my request for UMass Boston Police Department timesheets from the week of March 23-29, 2025.” Mr. Levin further asserts, “[e]ven assuming the timesheets do contain information such as the location of officer deployments or number of officers assigned to SWAT rosters, UMass has provided no explanation as to why the documents could not be produced with that information redacted. Even if the redacted form leaves only the document headers (which would undoubtedly be grounds for appeal) UMass must produce it in that form, with each redaction justified.” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) permits the withholding of: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure

DeWayne Lehman SPR25/2929 Page 3 October 20, 2025 located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist would find useful to maximize damage.” PETA, 477 Mass. at 289-90. The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[because the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its response UMass stated, “[r]evealing how many officers or responders are deployed – and where – can expose vulnerabilities in emergency response, including but not limited to: Special event staffing levels[;] Tactical capacity[;] STOP team or SWAT deployment rosters[;] Escort assignments for dignitaries[.] Redacting the number of Troopers deployed was upheld under Exemption (n) to avoid disclosing tactical capacity. See: SPR23/2842 (January 24, 2024)[.] The University remains willing and accessible to working with Mr. Levin on media inquiries, and for public records requests we will adhere to applicable statute.” In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of UMass’ claims to withhold the reponsive records pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law, UMass must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the

DeWayne Lehman SPR25/2929 Page 4 October 20, 2025 judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, UMass is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Levin