Ornelas, Maurice v. Office of the Inspector General (SPR 20260125)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Office Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 28, 2026 SPR26/0125 Janeal L. Hoyte, Esq. Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel Office of the Inspector General One Ashburton Place, Room 1311 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Hoyte: I have received the petition of Dr. Maurice J. Ornelas, appealing the response of the Office of the Inspector General (Office/OIG) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 4, 2025, Mr. Ornelas requested records relating to “how the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) received, reviewed, and closed my complaint filed on October 28, 2025 regarding Bridgewater State University (BSU), the Bridgewater State University Police Department (BSUPD), and the Massachusetts Supervisor of Records / Public Records Division[.]” Dr. Ornelas specifically requested the following: [1] Intake or tracking records, including internal logs, ticket numbers, or database entries showing receipt of my complaint. [2] Internal communications among OIG staff concerning the review, classification, or closure of the complaint. [3] External communications, if any, with other agencies or officials regarding the complaint. [4] Any memoranda or notes documenting the decision whether to open an investigation. [5] Policies, manuals, or guidance documents used by OIG staff when determining whether a complaint falls within the office’s jurisdiction. [6] Final correspondence or summary prepared for internal or external reporting about this complaint. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3291 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 24, 2025). In my November 24th determination, I learned that 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

Janeal L. Hoyte, Esq. SPR26/0125 Page 2 January 28, 2026 the Office provided Dr. Ornelas with an additional response on November 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Dr. Ornelas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0125, 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 Office’s November 14th Response In its November 14, 2025 response, the Office cited G. L. c. 12A, § 13 and G. L. c. 12A, § 14(b), as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, to withhold the requested records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, §7 (26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977).

Janeal L. Hoyte, Esq. SPR26/0125 Page 3 January 28, 2026 This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. G. L. c. 12A, § 13 and G. L. c. 12A, § 14(b) state in pertinent part as follows: All records of the office of inspector general shall be confidential unless, it is necessary for the inspector general to make such records public in the performance of his duties, and shall not be public records as defined in section seven of chapter four. G. L. c. 12A, § 13. The inspector general shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the written consent of said employee, unless the inspector general determines such disclosure is necessary and unavoidable during the course of the investigation. In such event, the employee shall be notified in writing at least seven days prior to such disclosure. G. L. c. 12A, § 14(b). In its response, the Office asserts, “[p]ursuant to M.G.L. c. 12A, § 13, which states that OIG records ‘shall be confidential unless, it is necessary for the inspector general to make such records public in the performance of his duties,” the OIG can neither confirm nor deny whether it in fact possesses any records responsive to the appellant’s request. The OIG opposed the appellant’s request and stands by its previous response issued November 6, 2025.” The Office further stated, “... as a matter of public policy, information related to a whistleblower complaint, including internal OIG processes, must remain confidential in order to maintain the integrity of the work of the OIG. The Legislature intended for Chapter 12A confidentiality to promote the full and frank disclosure of information to the agency, allowing the OIG to accomplish its statutory mandate to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the expenditure of public funds. This confidentiality offers assurance to the OIG’s witnesses that the OIG will not reveal their identities, is critical to conducting investigations and analyzing data, and allows for the candid discussion and recording of thoughts, hypotheses, and conclusions about a case.”

Janeal L. Hoyte, Esq. SPR26/0125 Page 4 January 28, 2026 Finally, the Office stated, [c]lassifying OIG internal records regarding complaints as public records could hamper future investigations by creating a chilling effect that would discourage potential whistleblowers from submitting complaints; this would inhibit the OIG’s ability to fully investigate, analyze, and report on fraud, waste, and abuse of public funds in the Commonwealth.” Based on the Office’s November 14th response, and as the records are restricted from disclosure in their entirety by the Legislature under G. L. c. 12A, § 13, as it operates through Exemption (a), I find the Office has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 12A, § 13 (“[a]ll records of the office of inspector general shall be confidential unless, it is necessary for the inspector general to make such records public in the performance of his duties, and shall not be public records...”). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Dr. Ornelas 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 of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dr. Maurice J. Ornelas