Wolman, Jordan v. Massachusetts Gaming Commission (SPR 20260705)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0705 Judith Young, Esq. Senior Associate General Counsel Massachusetts Gaming Commission 101 federal Street, 12th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Young: I have received the petition of Jordan Wolman, of CommonWealth Beacon, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (Commission) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 9, 2026, Mr. Wolman requested the following: [1] I am requesting the names, gender, and job title of any and all current and former employees within the Commission’s gaming agents division, going back to 2015, and each person’s location (whether they were assigned to work at the Encore casino in Everett, the Plainridge Park Casino in Plainville, or the MGM casino in Springfield). If the employee has departed the Commission since 2015, please also list the reason for their departure, including but not limited to terminated, voluntary departure, etc. I am also requesting information pertaining to whether each employee, whether former or current, had a supervisory role or not. [2] I would also like to request information pertaining to the number of complaints filed by Gaming Commission past or present employees, dating back to 2015, regarding allegations of a hostile or toxic workplace, including but not limited to allegations of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation. I would like to request any and all such reports, but if that is not possible, I would at least like to view the aggregate number of these complaints that have been filed by Commission employees, past or present, dating back to 2015, and from the number of employees that have made such filings. For instance, if 10 complaints have been filed, I would at least like to know that out of those 10 complaints, 2 came from Employee A, 5 came from Employee B, and 3 came from Employee C. I am also requesting information pertaining to the result or outcome of each 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

Judith Young, Esq. SPR26/0705 Page 2 March 16, 2026 complaint. The Commission responded on February 9, and February 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s response, Mr. Wolman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0705, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Commission provided a further response to this office and Mr. Wolman on March 11, 2026. 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. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, Mr. Wolman argues the following: I am appealing the denial of a portion of a recent records request response that I received from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. My request was not seeking any personal or confidential information, but rather an aggregate number of complaints made by Commission employees within the gaming agents division. This information should be readily available and not infringing upon privacy concerns. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand that Mr. Wolman objects only to the Commission’s response to Item 2 of his request. The Commission’s February 23rd and March 11th Responses In its February 23, 2026 response, the Commission provides a spreadsheet responsive to Item 1 of the request, and explains the following:

Judith Young, Esq. SPR26/0705 Page 3 March 16, 2026 Regarding the first portion of your request, the Commission is not in possession of one specific record that is wholly responsive to your request. However, the Commission is providing an extract of requested data that was contained in other Commission records, as contemplated within 950 CMR 32.07(1)(f). Nonresponsive and exempt data, including personally identifiable information, and personnel data that is protected by the Privacy Exemption to the Public Records Law, G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c), is not included within this spreadsheet. In its March 11, 2026 response, the Commission further explains the following: Mr. Wolman’s appeal pertains to the second portion of his request. His statement to the Supervisor of Records indicated that he “was not seeking any personal or confidential information, but rather an aggregate number of complaints made by Commission employees within the gaming agents division.” He further stated that “this information should be readily available and not infringing upon privacy concerns.” As an initial matter, Mr. Wolman’s original request was not limited to the “gaming agents division” as stated in his appeal. His original request was much broader and sought documents from all Gaming Commission employees past or present. His original request further requested “any and all reports but if that is not possible, I would at least like to view the aggregate number of complaints filed by Commission employees past or present dating back to 2015.” Mr. Wolman also requested documents pertaining to the results or outcome of each complaint. The mandatory disclosure provision of the Public Records Law only applies to information that is in the custody of the governmental entity at the time the request is received. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) (defining “public records” as materials which have already been “made or received” by a public entity); see also 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977) (custodian is not obliged to create a record in response to a request for information). In the present case, the Commission is not in possession of any records that contain aggregated data regarding the number of complaints filed by past or present employees, dating back to 2015. Consequently, there was no obligation to create a record for a requester or to honor prospective requests. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control Please be advised that 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). Further, 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). However, 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).

Judith Young, Esq. SPR26/0705 Page 4 March 16, 2026 In this case, where the Commission has confirmed that it does not possess responsive records to Item 2 of the request, and the Commission has no duty to create records, I find that the Commission has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Wolman 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(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jordan Wolman