Coleman, Rory v. Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20260001)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 15, 2026 SPR26/0001 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Rory M. Coleman 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 December 9, 2025, Mr. Coleman requested the following records: Regarding IAD Case 2022-0505: [1] Name and title of BPD employee who submitted sustained findings to POST[;] [2] Date and time POST received the submission[;] [3] Name and title of POST employee who entered findings on my record[;] [4] Date and time findings were published to my public record[;] [5] All documents BPD submitted to POST regarding this case[;] [6] All communications between BPD and POST (emails, letters, phone logs)[;] [7] Source of the phrase “restricted space” – this language appears in no BPD rule or IAD document[.] Regarding IAD Case 2022-0495: [8] All documents BPD submitted to POST[;] [9] All communications between BPD and POST (Note: The City admitted in MCAD Para. 38 that “there was an error made by IAD in recording the complaint” in this case.) 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. SPR26/0001 Page 2 January 15, 2026 General Records: [10] Any notice sent to me before or after publication of either case, including date and method[;] [11] POST policies governing notice to officers before publication of sustained findings[;] [12] POST policies governing verification of submission accuracy before publication[;] [13] Records of any amendments, corrections, or disputes to my POST record[;] [14] POST’s procedures when a submitting agency admits error in the underlying case[;] [15] Any legal review conducted by POST before publishing the “felony” characterization, including analysis of whether the elements of M.G.L. c. 272 § 99 were met[.] The Commission responded on December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Coleman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0001, 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 December 23rd Response In its December 23, 2025 response, the Commission stated, “[w]e received your request for public records, it is currently under review. We have a high volume right now and it’s [led] to a backup of requests. Please allow us additional time to respond.”

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0001 Page 3 January 15, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Coleman stated, “22 days have passed with no records, no fee estimate, and no production date.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Coleman’s request was submitted on December 9, 2025, and the Commission has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Commission has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Accordingly, I find the Commission must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Commission must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Mr. Coleman with a response to the request provided in a manner consistent with this order, 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. Coleman may appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0001 Page 4 January 15, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rory M. Coleman Kerri L. Johnson