Brower, William v. Executive Office of Veterans Services (SPR 20260657)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 4, 2026 SPR26/0657 Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. Records Access Officer Executive Office of Veterans Services 15 New Chardon Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Dear Attorney Yankopoulos: I have received the petition of William Brower appealing the response of the Executive Office of Veterans Services (Office/EOVS) 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. Brower requested: [1] All grievances, complaints, concerns, or correspondence submitted by me, William Brower, a veteran residing in Springfield, MA, to EOVS since November 1, 2025 (including but not limited to emails, attachments, formal submissions, and communications directed to [an identifed individual] or other EOVS staff). [2] All records documenting the receipt, processing, status, resolution, or any actions taken in response to each grievance, complaint, or concern listed in item 1, including internal notes, emails, memoranda, or decisions. [3] A complete list of all investigations (formal or informal, active or closed) initiated by EOVS since November 1, 2025, relating to the Springfield Veterans’ Services Office (VSO), including any involving [an identified individual] (or any prior directors such as [an identified individual], if applicable), Chapter 115 benefits administration, systemic failure of Western Massachusetts chapter 115 appeal process, retaliation against veterans, records obstruction, disability accommodations, or service animal-related issues. [4] For each investigation identified in item 3: the date initiated, scope/ description, findings (if closed), current status (if active), any corrective actions ordered or taken, and all related documentation. [5] Any and all records related to EOVS directives, guidance, instructions, 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

Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. SPR26/0657 Page 2 March 4, 2026 policies, or communications (internal or external, including emails, memos, meeting notes, texts, phone call summaries, or verbal instructions documented in writing) regarding communication or engagement with [an identified individual] during the pendency of my Chapter 115 appeal (scheduled for February 6, 2026). This includes but is not limited to:  Records of any instruction, guidance, or directive issued by [an identified individual] (or any other EOVS personnel) directing staff not to communicate or engage with me until after the appeal hearing, as disclosed to me by an EOVS employee during a phone conversation on or about December 22, 2025, and referenced in follow-up text messages on December 23, 2025.  Details for any such instruction(s): who issued it, to whom it was issued (including specific employee(s)), date(s), medium (e.g., email, verbal in meeting, phone, text), exact wording if documented, origin/source, and any cited basis or rationale (e.g., specific statute, regulation, CMR, policy, or procedural justification for delaying or prohibiting communication with a veteran reporting ongoing abuse and retaliation during a pending appeal that does not address those issues).  Any broader EOVS policy, procedural guidance, or regulation regarding staff communication with veterans who have pending Chapter 115 appeals. [6] Any records corroborating, relating to, or referencing the disclosure made by an EOVS employee to me (via phone on or about December 22, 2025, and text message exchange on December 23, 2025) concerning the above instruction from [an identified individual]. On December 23, 2025, Mr. Brower modified his request to include: [7] A full compilation of all emails, correspondence, or electronic submissions sent by me, William Brower, to any EOVS email address or staff member (including but not limited to [an identified individual]) since November 1, 2025. This includes all emails beginning on or about November 6, 2025, and continuing through the present, along with any attachments, forwarded messages, or related threads. [8] Any and all summaries, notes, logs, or records of phone calls, voicemails, or verbal communications initiated by me to EOVS (including calls to [an identified individual’s] office or general lines) since November 1, 2025, including date, time, duration (if logged), participating staff, and content summary. [9] For each email, submission, or phone communication identified in items [7] and [8] above:

Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. SPR26/0657 Page 3 March 4, 2026  All records documenting the receipt, review, assignment, processing, follow-up actions, internal discussions, resolutions, or status updates related to that specific item.  A detailed explanation or log of what actions (if any) were taken in response to each grievance, concern, or request raised therein, including whether an investigation was initiated, any corrective measures ordered, communications sent to the Springfield VSO, or reasons for no action.  Any internal notes, emails, or memoranda referencing or responding to the specific concerns in each submission. The Office responded on January 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0657, 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 January 8th Response On January 8, 2026, the Office stated: Regarding #1, you should be in possession of all written correspondence submitted by you to our office. If you do not have them readily available, due to the broad scope of your request, EOVS must conduct a search for such documentation, which can take up to one (1) week. … Regarding #2, #3 and #4 of your initial request, EOVS has no responsive records in its possession, custody or control. As indicated in a response letter to you

Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. SPR26/0657 Page 4 March 4, 2026 issued by EOVS on November 26, 2025, and again in an email to you on December 10, 2025, EOVS is not an investigatory or enforcement agency and has no legal authority to intervene in disputes you may have regarding outside service providers, or municipal decisions. Regarding #5 and #6 of your initial request, EOVS is not in possession of any directives, guidance, instructions, policies, or communications (internal or external, including emails, memos, meeting notes, texts, phone call summaries, or verbal instructions documented in writing) regarding communication or engagement with you. Furthermore, EOVS does not have any “broader policy, procedural guidance, or regulation regarding staff communication with veterans who have pending Chapter 115 appeals.” … …EOVS is not in possession of any documented follow-up action, as it is not an investigatory or enforcement agency. Further, the Office provided records responsive to Items 1 and 8 of Mr. Brower’s request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower contends: EOVS provided only three extremely brief, generic notes (dated 12/15, 12/16, and 12/17/2025) that do not address the core of the request (internal handling, safety checks, outreach during the storm, policies, and written confirmation if no records exist). They added a note stating “you should have copies of the record requests that you submit,” which completely misses the point. I was not asking for copies of my own submissions — I was asking for EOVS’s own internal records of receipt, processing, status, resolution, actions taken, safety checks, and any policies. 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 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. Brower’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Office possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, the Office must clarify whether it possesses additional responsive records. To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Office must

Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. SPR26/0657 Page 5 March 4, 2026 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 Office must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the Office is ordered to provide Mr. Brower 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. Brower may further appeal the substantive nature of the Office’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower