Bamberger, Paul v. Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Massachusetts Parole Board (SPR 20260775)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 13, 2026 SPR26/0775 Caitlin McDermott, Esq. Legal Counsel Massachusetts Parole Board 12 Mercer Road Natick, MA 01760 Dear Attorney McDermott: I have received the petition of Paul Bamberger, of the Transformational Prison Project, appealing the response of the Massachusetts Parole Board (Board) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 17, 2025, Mr. Bamberger requested: . . . documentation that exists in the Parole Board’s files regarding Parole Board decisions terminating the parole of any individuals defined as “Transformational Youth.” For purposes of this document request, please use the following definitions of “Transformational Youth on parole”: The definition of “Transformational Youth on parole” or “TY on parole” shall mean any individual who meets the following four criteria: (a) an individual who was between the ages of 14 and 21 (i.e. age 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20) at the time of their offense, and (b) who was convicted of first or second-degree murder and (c) received a life sentence and (d) was granted parole. The definition of “Transformational Youth on parole” or “TY on parole” shall also mean any individual who meets the following four criteria: (a) an individual who was between the ages of 14 and 21 (i.e. age 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20) at the time of their offense, and (b) who was convicted of manslaughter while violating the provisions of sections 102 to 102c, inclusive, of chapter 266.” [sic] and (c) received a life sentence and (d) was granted parole. . . . 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

Caitlin McDermott, Esq. SPR26/0775 Page 2 March 13, 2026 TPP hereby requests any and all Parole Board decisions terminating the parole of an individual who meets the definition of a “Transformational Youth” (TY) provided above. If the Board determines that, out of all the Board’s decisions terminating parole, it has not terminated the parole of a TY, please so state. . . . On February 9, 2026, Mr. Bamberger clarified his request, seeking: . . . the number of TYs who had their parole terminated between 2015 and 2024, if any. We really only want that number. We can also clarify our request by eliminating any request for records or information regarding people on parole who were convicted of manslaughter while violating G.L. c. 266. Therefore, we are limiting the definition of Transformational Youth (“TYs”) to any individual who was between the ages of 14 and 21 at the time of the offense, who was convicted of first-degree murder or second degree murder and received a life sentence for that crime, and was paroled from that sentence. . . . The reason we originally asked for copies of the termination decisions is that public records requests are generally limited to “records that exist.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (ii). We explained this in our November 17, 2025 request. That is the reason we asked for copies of decisions, for example, a simple 4 sentence “certificate of termination.” However, if it is problematic for the Board to provide decisions or certificates of terminations, and if the Board is willing and able to disclose the number of terminations of parole that involved TYs, that would satisfy our November 17, 2025 request. The Board responded on December 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Bamberger petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0775, 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

Caitlin McDermott, Esq. SPR26/0775 Page 3 March 13, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Bamberger contends: . . . Furthermore, it is the Board’s practice to issue a “Certificate of Terminatio”" whenever it terminates parole. The Certificate of Termination is a short document containing approximately four sentences. TPP has consistently asserted that there are such documents in the Board’s possession and the Board has not denied it. . . . In its December 9, 2025 denial, the Board went off on a tangent, asking if TPP wanted the reasoning behind the terminations of Parole. To the contrary, TPP has never asked for the reasoning behind the Board’s termination decisions and we do not ask for it now. In our email dated February 9, 2026 we clarified that we are not asking for the reasoning behind the decisions, only the common four-sentence Certificate of Termination. We received no response to our February 9, 2026 email. Furthermore, as noted above, the Board’s December 9, 2025 response misstated the definition of TY adding “manslaughter while violating G.L.c.266, Sec. 102- 102(c)” which was not part of the definition of TY in the November 17, 2025 request. The denial should therefore be overturned on that basis as well. Based on Mr. Bamberger’s appeal petition, I understand that he is not appealing the Board’s withholding of “the Board’s reasoning for terminating the sentence of . . . Transformational Youth” under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The Board’s December 9th Response On December 9, 2025, the Board cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold potentially responsive documents. The Board further stated the following: While the Board does internally document a brief reasoning for granting a Certificate of Termination, it does not create or publish a standardized decision in the matter. See G.L. c. 127, § 130A & 120 CMR 700. In fact, not even the recipient of a Certificate of Termination is notified of the Board’s reasoning for

Caitlin McDermott, Esq. SPR26/0775 Page 4 March 13, 2026 granting it. . . . Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control The Board is 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). Based on the Board’s response, and the information provided in Mr. Bamberger’s appeal petition, it remains unclear whether the Board possesses records responsive to Mr. Bamberger’s request. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Board possesses, “decisions or certificates of terminations” of “Transformational Youth” as described in Mr. Bamberger’s narrowed February 9th request. If the Board does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the Board is ordered to provide Mr. Bamberger 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. Bamberger may appeal the substantive nature of the Board’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paul Bamberger