Hugh Connolly v. Greenfield, City of - Police Department (SPR 20253119)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2025 SPR25/3119 Jeffrey Bengston, Esq. Records Access Officer City of Greenfield 321 High Street Greenfield, MA 01301 Dear Attorney Bengston: I have received the petition of Hugh Connolly appealing the response of the City of Greenfield (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 14, 2025, Mr. Connolly made two separate requests for records. First, Mr. Connolly requested “records regarding any employment or official association between [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] and the Greenfield Police Department at any time” including: [1] Employment records showing any period of service with GPD, whether full- time, part-time, temporary, or special assignment[;] [2] Assignment, training, operational records reflecting [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer’s] participation in GPD activities[;] [3] Internal communications or memos referencing [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] in connection with GPD officer[;] Subsequently, Mr. Connolly requested: [4] Shift schedules for Greenfield Police Department officer and [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer], who is assigned to the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and may have also been affiliated with the Greenfield Police Department, covering the period of November 25, 2021 through November 25, 2024. I am particularly interested in any shifts where both GPD officers and [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] were scheduled to work together, including K9- related incidents[;] [5] Records of any joint training events, seminars, or operations involving GPD officers and [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] during the same period, including documentation reflecting joint participation[;] 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

Jeffrey Bengston, Esq. SPR25/3119 Page 2 November 6, 2025 [6] Incident reports, dispatch logs, or case logs documenting events where GPD officers and [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] were jointly assigned or involved operationally, including K9-related incidents[;] [7] Correspondence (emails, internal memos, etc.) referring to both GPD officer and [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] working together in a professional context from the same timeframe. The City responded on October 15, and October 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the City’s responses, Mr. Connelly petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3119, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on October 27, October 29, and October 30, 2025, the City provided additional responses. 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. Att’y 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 City’s October 15th and October 16th Responses On October 15, 2025 the City provided three (3) responses. Response 1 The City provided records responsive to Item 6 and stated the following: I am in receipt of your email requesting the mentioned documents, and am combining your request… [An identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] is employed by the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, all employment records would come from them, not the

Jeffrey Bengston, Esq. SPR25/3119 Page 3 November 6, 2025 City of Greenfield. Similarly, the majority of assignments and training records would come from the Sheriff’s Department as well. I will look into the other items you requested. I have attached the schedule of assignments for the dates requested which shows all officer and assignments by personnel. The Sheriff assignment could be any sheriff currently working with or in the town who was available for assistance. Similarly, I have attached a log of calls were the sheriff arrived on scene. The log I attached…is over 2000 calls during that time frame…If that is not sufficient I will provide a good faith estimate for fees associated with manual redaction…a fee would be in excess of $1000. In response, Mr. Connolly stated, “…I’m specifically looking for any interaction between [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] and [three identified Greenfield Police officer]. Is this email good enough to modify it or would a new request be better[?]” Response 2 The City stated, “[t]he records sent encompass your request. I am not going to re-run the information, it is all there, you can narrow down as you see fit.” Response 3 The City stated, “[t]he log sent is by call number, if you believe you need more information on a particular call, not the call number(s) in your request please. In its October 16, 2025 response, the City stated, “I have confirmed there are no responsive records to ‘correspondence’ as requested. Absent any follow up, I will consider this request closed.” Current Appeal In his October 23, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Connolly stated, “[t]he final denial is based on deliberate mischaracterization of the correspondence. The custodian was explicitly asked to search for records related to specific officers and refused. His claim that no records exist is therefore made in bad faith. The custodian’s directive that I must sift through a 762-page log myself, after refusing a simple digital search for the named officer, violates the Public Records Law.” On October 27, 2025, in an email communication to Mr. Connolly and this office, the City stated the following: The requestor made two separate requests at approximately the same time (both similar in nature) so both were combined into one response. The department provided information that [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] is not employed by the [C]ity nor the Police Department. Sheriff’s can operate anywhere within Franklin County. In order to efficiently facilitate the request for

Jeffrey Bengston, Esq. SPR25/3119 Page 4 November 6, 2025 approximately four years of calls where the named Deputy Sheriff and named officers of the Greenfield Police Dept were involved, a log was provided, which as stated to requestor, was a ‘press’ log, containing calls in that time frame in which a sheriff and those officers were dispatched or arrived on scene. Requestor was advised to go through the log and if more information was requested as to particular items, a good faith estimate would be provided for research/redaction requirements. Requestor upon seeing the number of calls involved for four year time frame, re-requested the same information. Requestor was advised that the information contained in what was provided…That is the record for the four years request. Request was fulfilled as requested…. Requestor sought records of Joint Trainings: [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] does not work for the City of Greenfield and was not assigned any training by this Department. [An identified Greenfield police officer], along with all officers as that is the only way to run an attendance report, dates of training were provided for the time frame requested by the requestor… On October 29, 2025, in an email communication to Mr. Connolly and this office, the City stated the following: The [City] has no control over [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] and his schedule (work, training, seminars, or otherwise). Logs were provided for any calls in which he or another sheriff were present/involved/dispatched or otherwise noted using our database and searching officers by name. As previously stated, I am more than happy if the requester reviews and wants further information on any particular call, including any training call that [an identified Greenfield police officer] is listed on… As to the request regarding “joint” trainings etc. Both [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] and [an identified Greenfield police officer] are k9 officers in Franklin County. They are presumably asked by many organizations (houndsman for example) to attend events. I will note I am unaware of the packtrack software [an identified Greenfield police officer] uses personally and whether any of those records would meet the definition of public record. I will reply independently to the requestor with any records or exemption pertaining to that. As to the request of joint training and seminars, yes I am sure they attend the same events, but not in a joint capacity. The provided record showing assignments and call types provides the information as to events or training attended by [an identified Greenfield police officer]. Whether or not [an identified Franklin County Sheriff officer] attended the same would be provided by the Sheriff's Dept.

Jeffrey Bengston, Esq. SPR25/3119 Page 5 November 6, 2025 On October 30, 2025, in an email communication to Mr. Connolly, the City provided records responsive to Item 5 and stated the following: As a follow up to the email chain in the appeal, I have spoken with [an identified Greenfield Police Department officer] regarding the ‘packtrack’ software. The software is a third party (not owned, maintained, etc. by the City) program that many k9 Handlers throughout the state utilize to keep track of training. I have attached his training log and do not have access to [an identified Franklin County Sherriff’s Department officer] for reasons previously stated. However in the event you wish to cross reference any records from the sheriffs department, they may match with [an identified Greenfield Police Department officer]. I would again state these are not necessarily joint trainings between [an identified Franklin County Sherriff’s Department officer] and [an identified Greenfield Police Department officer], rather trainings available to all to attend. I have also attached emails from packtrack mentioning [an identified Franklin County Sherriff’s Department officer] sent to [an identified Greenfield Police Department officer] regarding scheduling of training. Please note the emails do not necessarily indicate [an identified Greenfield Police Department officer] attended but was invited/scheduled. Additionally, in numerous emails to this office between October 26th and October 31st, Mr. Connolly reiterated his claim that the City has records related to “the professional relationship” between an identified Franklin County Sherriff’s Department officer and an identified Greenfield Police Department officer. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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 request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). 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). 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 this case, based on the City’s responses, and the information provided in Mr. Connolly’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to Items 5 and 7 the request. If the City does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the 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”). The City must clarify these matters.

Jeffrey Bengston, Esq. SPR25/3119 Page 6 November 6, 2025 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Where the City has stated that it does not possess responsive records for Items 1through 4, and this office has no authority to compel the City to create records, I find the City has met its burden under the Public Records Law in responding to these Items of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Connolly with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Connolly may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Hugh Connolly