Brower, William v. Executive Office of Veterans Services (SPR 20260791)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0791 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 identified 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. SPR26/0791 Page 2 March 16, 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. SPR26/0791 Page 3 March 16, 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. Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0657 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 4, 2026). In my March 4th determination, I ordered the Office to clarify whether it possesses additional responsive records. The Office responded on March 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Mr. Brower petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0791, 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 March 4th Response On March 4, 2026, the Office states: To the extent the requester seeks a “list of investigations,” no such record exists within EOVS. EOVS does not generate or maintain investigative files concerning

Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. SPR26/0791 Page 4 March 16, 2026 municipal employees because such oversight authority does not reside with this agency. With respect to communications referenced in the request, the EOVS Engagement Team utilizes a call-logging platform to document telephone contacts. That system generates notes memorializing the substance of conversations. Those call log entries constitute the only responsive records within EOVS’s possession, custody, or control. Those records have been produced to the requester. Additionally, the Public Records Guide makes clear that an agency is not required to provide copies of records of which the requester is already in possession. Where records have previously been furnished to the petitioner, EOVS is not obligated to duplicate production. While in this case the requestor has not been furnished with the records he is requesting, he was the creator of the records. Therefore, he should already be in possession of the requested records. Finally, EOVS notified the requestor that, as he was requesting his own emails submitted to EOVS, a cost may be associated, due to the broad scope, and that he could narrow his request, to be more cost effective. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Brower contends: I am writing to formally request the recusal or reassignment of Hearing Officer / Records Access Officer [an identified individual] from my pending Chapter 115 appeal (hearing held February 5, 2026; decision still pending). [An identified individual] serves in dual roles:  As the hearing officer deciding my case, she must remain impartial and ensure due process.  As the RAO, she responded to my public records requests related to the same case… This dual role creates a conflict of interest because:  The PRRs seek records central to the hearing issues…  Her responses have been obstructive…  As hearing officer, she knows these complaints from the hearing and pre- hearing submissions, yet the PRR responses ignore or deflect on them. 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

Mark Yankopoulos, Esq. SPR26/0791 Page 5 March 16, 2026 questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 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). In a telephone call between a Public Records Division staff member and a representative of the Office on March 9, 2026, the Office confirmed that all responsive records have been provided. Where the Office has confirmed that all responsive records have been provided, I find that the Office has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. Issues Outside the Authority of this Office Please be advised that the Office of the Supervisor of Records is statutorily empowered with the authority to determine the public record status of government records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10. Further, in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been alleged. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Please note that conflict of interest for hearing officers is outside the jurisdiction of this office. Given that such issues do not fall within the authority of this office, I am unable to address such issues in this determination. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Brower is advised that he may wish to seek advice from private legal counsel regarding his concerns about the assignment of a hearing officer. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: William Brower