Meghan Dube v. Cannabis Control Commission (SPR 20253348)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 26, 2025 SPR25/2910 Philip Schreffler, Esq. Associate General Counsel Cannabis Control Commission 2 Washington Square Worcester, MA 01604 Dear Attorney Schreffler: I have received the petition of Meghan Dube appealing the response of the Cannabis Control Commission (Commission) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 8, 2025, Ms. Dube requested: [1] Evaluation documents created by members of the body for the purposes of evaluation of evaluate [an identified individual] for the period of October 16, 2023 to the present MGL c. 30A Section 22 (a), regardless if these materials were used for an Open Meeting or an Executive Session. [2] Memo sent through email by [an identified individual] prior to October 16, 2023 recommending a pay increase for [an identified individual] (inclusive of any memo that was not approved and/or was not acted upon). [a] Any associated emails[.] [3] Memos or other documents authorizing pay increases on the following effective dates: [a] August 27, 2023[;] [b] December 3, 2023[;] [c] December 17, 2023[;] [d] December 29, 2024[.] Subsequently, on August 9, 2025, Ms. Dube requested: [4] Investigative reports prepared by [an identified individual], from September 2023 through the present, related to investigations into [an identified individual’s] behavior and treatment of various staff. 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

Philip Schreffler, Esq. SPR25/3348 Page 2 November 26, 2025 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/2910 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 17, 2025). In my October 17th determination, I found that the Commission met its burden to withhold in their entirety, records responsive to Items 1 and 4 of Ms. Dube’s request pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. I further ordered the Commission to clarify its claims under Exemption (c)’s personnel clause where it was unclear how records responsive to Items 2 and 3, in their entirety, constitute personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. Subsequently, the Commission responded on October 27, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Dube petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3348, was opened as a result. Conclusion Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I learned that the Commission provided a supplemental response by email to Ms. Dube and this office on November 17, 2025, which included responsive records. As this appeal was opened based on the Commission’s October 27th response, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If unresolved issues remain, Ms. Dube may further appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s November 17th response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Meghan Dube