Smith, Raymond v. Division of Occupational Licensure (SPR 20260341)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 12, 2026 SPR26/0341 Jean McCarthy Records Access Officer Division of Occupational Licensure 1000 Washington Street Boston, MA 02118 Dear Ms. McCarthy: I have received the petition of Raymond Smith appealing the response of the Division of Occupational Licensure (Division/DOL) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 23, 2025, Mr. Smith requested the following records “relating to Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine case no. 2024-000920-IT- ENF, including:” [1] April 12, 2025 submission from [an identified individual] Please provide: [a] All documents and attachments transmitted to Board staff, Board counsel, or prosecuting counsel by or on behalf of [an identified individual] on or about April 12, 2025 in connection with Docket No. 2024-000920-IT-ENF. This request specifically includes, but is not limited to:  any separate electronic files or attachments (e.g., PDFs associated with the April 12, 2025 VCA medical history export, such as items internally labeled with 2025-04-12 in the filename),  any cover email or transmittal letter accompanying that April 12, 2025 submission. If all records responsive to this item have already been produced to me in the prior PDF …, please confirm that in writing. [2] Investigative file as of February 3, 2025 (“Completed” status) … A copy of the investigative file as it existed on or before February 3, 2025, when 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

Jean McCarthy SPR26/0341 Page 2 February 12, 2026 the case status was changed to “Completed.” This should include, to the extent not already clearly separated:  medical records and related documents obtained by Board staff or investigator [an identified individual] from VCA or any other treating facility,  the licensee’s written response dated on or about January 31, 2025, including all attachments that were part of that response, any investigative summaries, notes, or internal memoranda that were part of the file at the time the case was marked “Completed.” Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0178 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 2, 2026). In my February 2nd determination, I ordered the Division to provide a response to Mr. Smith. The Division responded on January 28, 2026 and February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Division’s responses, Mr. Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0341, 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 Division’s January 28th and February 2nd Responses On January 28, 2026, the Division provided numerous records and stated: Please note that all responsive records have been submitted to the requester

Jean McCarthy SPR26/0341 Page 3 February 12, 2026 regarding case 2024- 000920-IT-ENF and that no responsive records exist as to the February 3, 2025 case activity sheet. On February 2, 2026, the Division stated: As previous[ly] stated on this matter, the DOL has provided all responsive records related to 2024-000920-IT-ENF. Please note that the DOL has no obligation to “answer” any questions related to the documents as the requester seems to want in this instance. The records speak for themselves. We have provided the records along with reasons for all the redactions. DOL considers this matter closed. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Smith contends: [1] The January 28 email simply re-sends the July 1 production and makes a global assertion that “all responsive records have been submitted.” It does not:  state whether the Division searched for an April 12 cover email or similar transmittal;  clarify whether such a record exists; or  identify any exemption being applied to withhold it. [2] … the January 28 response answers, at most, a narrow sub-question about a February 3 “snapshot,” but not the broader request for the contents of the investigative file as of that date or for a mapping of pre–April 12 materials in the current file. Additional Records 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). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). Based on issues raised in Mr. Smith’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Division possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, the Division must clarify whether it possesses “any cover email or transmittal letter accompanying that April 12, 2025 submission.” To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Division must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The Division must clarify this matter.

Jean McCarthy SPR26/0341 Page 4 February 12, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Division is ordered to provide Mr. Smith 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. Smith may further appeal the substantive nature of the Division’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Raymond Smith