Wallack, Todd v. Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (SPR 20260537)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0537 Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. General Counsel Peace Officer Standards & Training Commission 84 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Dear Attorney Ravitz: I have received the petition of Todd Wallack, of the Washington Post, 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 May 11, 2023, Mr. Wallack requested the following records: Copies of any spreadsheets/data law enforcement agencies sent to the POST Commission since November 2021, reporting the names and disciplinary information about both current and former officers. This includes both the original data POST required and the more recent submissions. Previous Appeals, In Camera Review, and Reconsiderations This request was the subject of previous appeals, an in camera review, and reconsiderations. See SPR23/1190 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 20, 2023); SPR23/1673 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 3, 2023); SPR23/1954 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 6, 2023); SPR24/0774 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2024, June 3, 2024, and August 6, 2024); SPR24/2523 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2024 and November 8, 2024); SPR24/3236 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2024); SPR25/0007 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025 and February 24, 2025); SPR25/0675 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 25, 2025 and May 1, 2025); SPR25/1550 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 16, 2025); SPR25/2068 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25, 2025); SPR25/2374 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (August 27, 2025, and October 20, 2025) and SPR25/3255 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 20, 2025 and January 14, 2026). 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. SPR26/0537 Page 2 March 16, 2026 In my January 14th determination, I noted that unlike the recent case of Gibson v. Department of Correction, cited by the Commission in its reconsideration request, in the present case, Mr. Wallack provided this office with copies of his original request and responses received from the Commission. See Gibson v. Dep’t of Corr., 106 Mass. App. Ct. 201 (2025). Consequently, I declined to reverse my findings in the previous November 20th determination, and ordered the Commission to provide Mr. Wallack with a response to the request within ten (10) business days. Subsequently, the Commission responded on January 30, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Wallack petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0537, 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. Current Appeal In his February 13, 2026 appeal petition, Mr. Wallack argues the following: The agency has still not provided any of the records I requested. Now has it cited any specific records. [sic] Instead of providing the documents I requested, the agency says it would prefer to provide alternative records instead - its own database it compiled of police misconduct. My understanding is that database is already on the agency’s website and is materially different than the records I am seeking, not only in form but in substance. The public database does not show where the information came from. It is missing officers and disciplinary investigations reported by individual agencies. And even where cases are listed, it does not contain all the information that individual agencies originally provided to the POST commission. For all these reasons, I must respectfully decline the agency’s offer to provide a different set of documents than I requested.

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0537 Page 3 March 16, 2026 The Commission’s January 30th Response In its January 30, 2026 response, the Commission argues, among other things, the following: As you know, the Commission responded to your public records request by providing you with a roughly 40,000-line spreadsheet containing law enforcement officer disciplinary information on November 25, 2024. (Commission Email, Letter & Linked Attachment of Nov. 25, 2024.) The Commission prepared the spreadsheet by extracting segregable, non-exempt data from spreadsheets submitted by law enforcement agencies. In doing so, the Commission employed a legally permissible and appropriate method of addressing your request. Accordingly, the Commission has already satisfied any obligation that it had under the public records law, as further explained below. . . . The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confirmed as much in Attorney General v. District Attorney, 484 Mass. 260, 262, 274-75 (2020). There the court essentially recognized that it would be allowable for an agency to sort, segregate, extract, and compile certain data from an internal database and create a new report in response to a public records request. See id. . . . It follows that, by providing you with its roughly 40,000-line spreadsheet of data regarding law enforcement officers’ disciplinary records in November 2024, the Commission fully satisfied any obligation to respond to your public records request. … Unclear Appeal Upon a careful and thorough review of this matter, including a review of Mr. Wallack’s original request, the Commission’s previous responses, Mr. Wallack’s previous appeal petitions, and the Commission’s most recent January 30th response, I find it is unclear from Mr. Wallack’s most recent appeal petition what specific records he received. Mr. Wallack is advised that, when petitioning for an appeal to the Supervisor, the requestor must provide “a complete copy of all written responses associated with requests subject to the petition for appeal.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f)(2). In this case, where the Commission appears to have provided a set of records containing data responsive to Mr. Wallack’s request, I find that Mr. Wallack’s claim that the Commission “has still not provided any of the records I requested,” is unclear. If Mr. Wallack is unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, he may wish to submit a new appeal, including copies of the records he received, and specifically describing any objections to the data that may have been withheld or redacted by the Commission in such records. Please note that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f).

Randall E. Ravitz, Esq. SPR26/0537 Page 4 March 16, 2026 Conclusion Based on the above, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Wallack 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(a), (c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Todd Wallack