McGowan, Scott v. Hinsdale, Town of (SPR 20260305)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0305 Chief Bruce W. Cullett Hinsdale Police Department 39 South Street Hinsdale, MA 01235 Dear Chief Cullett: I have received the petition of Scott McGowan appealing the response of the Hinsdale Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 13, 2025, Mr. McGowan requested: Any and all records, whether in electronic, hard copy, or any other format, that are in the possession of the Town of Hinsdale and the Hinsdale Police Department, regarding the HPD assignment(s) and participation in the law enforcement escort of [an identified] Hinsdale Police Sergeant, on or about, January 10, 2026. These records include, but are not limited to, letters, memoranda, electronic mail, notes, text messages, payroll records, and telephone records. Please provide an itemized list of all documents that my request applies to as soon as possible. … The Department responded on January 28, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. McGowan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0305, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on January 30, 2025, the Department provided a supplemental response. 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). 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

Chief Bruce W. Cullett SPR26/0305 Page 2 February 10, 2026 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. Att’y 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 Department’s January 28th Response In its January 28, 2026 response, the Department provided responsive records in redacted form and cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). On January 30, 2026, subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department provided a supplemental response, explaining: It should be noted that our review of Mr. McGowan’s request resulted in the identification of a series of emails from the Hinsdale Police Chief’s email account that were received through the Berkshire Law Enforcement Council (BLEC). These emails were provided to Mr. McGowan in redacted form in accordance with Exemption (a) and Exemption (c). Therefore, we must disagree with Mr. McGowan’s false assertion that the Hinsdale Police Department informed Mr. McGowan that “no records would be released”. The emails were included as a PDF attachment to the electronic response provided to Mr. McGowan. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. McGowan contends, “… [a] blanket refusal to provide any records based on the potential inclusion of exempt data demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Public Records Law. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Secretary of the Commonwealth intervene to compel the Town’s compliance and ensure the immediate release of all responsive records.” On February 2, 2026, Mr. McGowan clarified his appeal as follows: This appeal pertains specifically to the agency’s failure to produce responsive records, rather than the nature of the redactions provided. My original request sought all documentation—including correspondence, electronic mail, notes, and payroll records—concerning the Hinsdale Police Department’s participation in a pre-planned escort. While certain emails were produced, there is a conspicuous absence of

Chief Bruce W. Cullett SPR26/0305 Page 3 February 10, 2026 documentation regarding officer assignments, log entries, and payroll records. Given the confirmed participation of Hinsdale officers and standard law enforcement protocols, it is implausible that no internal communications or dispatch logs exist. The records produced to date show only high-level correspondence with the Berkshire Law Enforcement Council (BLEC); they do not account for the internal notification or deployment of individual employees. After reviewing Mr. McGowan’s appeal, he does not appear to be appealing the redactions to the responsive records under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. Additional Records Based on the Department’s response and in conjunction with the information provided in Mr. McGowan’s appeal, it is unclear if the Department possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional “letters, memoranda, electronic mail, notes, text messages, payroll records, or telephone records” as described in Mr. McGowan’s request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the Department must clarify whether additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. McGowan 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. McGowan may appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Scott McGowan