William Brower v. Springfield, City of - Department of Veterans’ Services (SPR 20253546)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 15, 2025 SPR25/3541 Joe DeCaro Director Springfield Department of Veterans’ Services 36 Court Street, Room 101 Springfield, MA 01103 Dear Mr. DeCaro: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the Springfield Department of Veterans’ Services (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 29, 2025, Mr. Brower sought the following: Dates November 1-29, 2025 [1] Any and all contacts or requests (formal or informal, written or verbal) made by the [Department] ([an indentified individual] or any staff) to the Springfield Police Department asking SPD to call, contact, or take action regarding [an identified individual][;] [2] The exact reason(s) or justification(s) provided by [the Department] for each such contact or request[;] [3] All SPD logs, recordings, CAD notes, reports, or officer notes for every November 2025 interaction involving [an indentified individual] (including any outbound call to [an identified individual] and any inbound call from [an identified individual]. Dates January 1, 2025 – present [4] Every instance in which SPD contacted or took action against a civilian at the request of any city, county, or state employee (including Veterans’ Services) in response to that civilian filing a complaint, grievance, or appeal against a city employee – without independent investigation – that could be construed as witness intimidation or retaliation[;] 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

Joe DeCaro SPR25/3546 Page 2 December 15, 2025 [5] Any records showing SPD policy, training materials, or past disciplinary actions regarding the requirement to independently investigate before acting on a city employee’s request for police contact that could be perceived as witness intimidation or retaliation. The Department provided a response on November 29, and December 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s responses, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3546, 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. See 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. See 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 Deparment’s November 29th and December 1st Response In its November 29, 2025 response, the Department stated, “[t]he links below are a couple ways you can submit records requests to the city of Springfield…” In its December 1, 2025 response, the City of Springfield stated, “[the Department] sent your request to me via email on 11/28/2025. I entered your request into the portal. Request entered: 25-4314… Your request is being processed in the usual manner with a due date of 12/12/2025.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Brower stated, “[a]s it stands, I would like to move forward as the email response suggest that [an identified individual] was not acting with the knowledge that he is responsible for records requests…”

Joe DeCaro SPR25/3546 Page 3 December 15, 2025 Pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.06, “requests for public records may be made orally in person to a records access officer or custodian or may be written. . . . [W]ritten requests may be delivered by a requester to the business address or designated website or email address of a records access officer or custodian: 1. by hand; 2. by mail; 3. by electronic mail; or 4. by facsimile, if custodian has facsimile access.” See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(a), (c). In this case, the Department accepted Mr. Brower’s request by email, provided a written response the same day, and did not require him to use a website or on-line portal to make his request. Based on the foregoing, I find the Department has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Brower is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower Stephen Roche, Esq.