Dube, Meghan v. Cannabis Control Commission (SPR 20260723)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2026 SPR26/0723 Stephen G. Roche, Esq. Associate General Counsel Cannabis Control Commission Union Station 2 Washington Square Worcester, MA 01604 Dear Attorney Roche: I have received the petition of Meghan Dube appealing the response of the Cannabis Control 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 5, 2026, Ms. Dube requested the following: Provide the CCCs standard operating procedures and policies related to: [1] Secret shopper programs[;] [2] Chain of custody for cannabis products removed or purchased from a licensee during a secret shopper event, inspections, receivership, and business closing[;] Also provide: [3] Records and invoices related to cameras and safes purchased for agency owned and leased vehicles[;] [4] [R]ecords and invoices related to installation of a vault for holding cannabis/marijuana products[;] [5] [R]ecords and invoices for cameras for the vault noted above[.] The Commission provided responses on February 19, 2026 and February 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Commission’s responses, Ms. Dube petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0723, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on March 16, 2026, the Commission provided this office with 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 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

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0723 Page 2 March 17, 2026 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. See 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 Commission’s February 19th and February 27th Response In its February 19, 2026 response, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the request and stated, “[it] will provide a response as soon as possible, but no later than February 27, 2026, 15-business days from receipt of your request.” In its February 27, 2026 response, the Commission stated, “[p]lease note records are exempt from a statutory definition of a public record in accordance with Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law because disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety.” Current Appeal In her March 3, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Dube objected to the Commission’s denial of her request under Exemption (n), stating, “the CCC’s refusal to respond with any of the records and/or to state that there are no records that are responsive to the request is not supported by either prong of the Exemption review as outlined by the SJC and does not provide any factual heft for their conclusion.” In a supplemental response, provided to this office on March 16, 2026, the Commission stated, “[u]pon further review, the Commission is withdrawing the denial based on exemption (n) and is reviewing the requested records. Those records will be reviewed and, if necessary, redacted before release. The basis of any redactions will be provided to Ms. Dube.” Timeframe for Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or

Stephen G. Roche, Esq. SPR26/0723 Page 3 March 17, 2026 municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Dube submitted her request on February 5, 2026, and the Commission has not provided responsive records, I find the Commission has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the Commission must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide any responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Commission must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission is ordered to provide Ms. Dube with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Ms. Dube may appeal the substantive nature of the Commission’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Meghan Dube