Todd Wallack v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20253255)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 20, 2025 SPR25/3255 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards & Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack, of WBUR, appealing the response of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 11, 2023, Mr. Wallack requested the following records: Copies of any spreadsheets/data law enforcement agencies sent to the POST Commission since November 2021, reporting the names and disciplinary information about both current and former officers. This includes both the original data POST required and the more recent submissions. Previous Appeals, In Camera Review, and Reconsiderations This request was the subject of previous appeals, an in camera review, and reconsiderations. See SPR23/1190 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 20, 2023); SPR23/1673 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 3, 2023); SPR23/1954 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 6, 2023); SPR24/0774 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2024, June 3, 2024, and August 6, 2024); SPR24/2523 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2024 and November 8, 2024); SPR24/3236 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2024); SPR25/0007 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025 and February 24, 2025); SPR25/0675 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 25, 2025 and May 1, 2025); SPR25/1550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2025); SPR25/2068 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25, 2025) and SPR25/2374 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 27, 2025, and October 20, 2025). In my August 27th determination, I found that the Commission had provided no new arguments nor additional information that would affect whether the Commission has met its burden in responding to 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

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/3255 Page 2 November 20, 2025 request, and in my October 20th letter, I declined to reverse my findings in the August 27th determination. Subsequently, the Commission responded on November 3, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3255, 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. The Commission’s November 3rd Response In its November 3, 2025 response, the Commission states the following: The Commission incorporates all of its prior responses and other communications herein. The Commission continues to maintain that, for the reasons offered in its prior correspondence: it has satisfied any obligations to respond to your public records request; it has fully explained its position; neither you nor the Supervisor’s Office has provided it with any reason to change its position; and it cannot conceive of any explanation for its position that has not already been provided. Upon review of the Commission’s November 3rd response, as with the Commission’s previous August 8, 2025, July 1, 2025, and May 15, 2025 responses, I find that the Commission has provided no new arguments nor additional information that would affect whether the Commission has met its burden in responding to the request.

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR25/3255 Page 3 November 20, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Mr. Wallack with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order and the previous orders, 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. Wallack may further appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Failure to comply with this order may result in referral of this matter to the Office of the Attorney General. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Wallack