O’Connor, Beth v. Steamship Authority (SPR 20260926)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/0926 Sean F. Driscoll Communications Director Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Avenue Falmouth, MA 02540 Dear Mr. Driscoll: I have received the petition of Beth O’Connor appealing the response of the Steamship Authority (Authority) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 31, 2025, Ms. O’Connor requested, “copies of all email and text correspondence involving SSA personnel, SSA Board members and Port Council members related to the OIG report for the period of December 18, 2025 through current[.] Please include all BCC designees as [an identified individual] is on record as stating that is one of his workarounds to the Open Meeting Law.” Subsequently, on January 28, 2026, Ms. O’Connor modified her request to seek the following, “copies of all email and text correspondence involving SSA personnel, SSA Board Members and Port Council members related to the OIG report for the period of December 18, 2025 – December 23, 2025[.] Please include all BCC designees…Please do not include any attachments containing the OIG report.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0544 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 2, 2026). In my March 2nd determination, I ordered the Authority to demonstrate whether it provided a response to Ms. O’Connor’s request under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) within 10 business days of receipt of the request. The Authority responded on March 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. O’Connor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0926, was opened as a result. 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

Sean Driscoll SPR26/0926 Page 2 March 27, 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. 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. See 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 Authority’s March 6th Response In its March 6, 2026 response, the Authority stated the following: Regarding your office’s ruling in this matter, I note that Ms. O’Connor withdrew the December 31, 2025, request following receipt of our fee request on January 26, 2026. That correspondence is attached…Based on your ruling, however, I am attaching my initial acknowledgment of her request… Although the matter she has emailed you about is moot based on her withdrawal, I will note that Ms. Connor subsequently filed a request on January 28, 2026, along with three (3) other community members, for similar material. I have attached that request…and my initial response…to this email. The subsequent request was the subject of a separate appeal filed by [an identified individual] and later ruled on by your office in SPR2[6]/0507, which directed me to provide further explanation as to the fee estimate. That response will be forthcoming and will be provided to the Supervisor’s office. Current Appeal In her March 15, 2026 appeal, Ms. O’Connor stated the following: … [1] I received a response on January 26 with no data but instead a notice that “the fee estimate at this point stands at $1,168.33.” I requested a breakdown of the fee

Sean Driscoll SPR26/0926 Page 3 March 27, 2026 and received a schedule which noted there would be 1,622 pages of PDF attachments to review. I asked if the attachments were the actual report being sent around multiple times, which I would not need…The response, on January 27, was that the review had to happen to determine what needed to be redacted. The answer was confusing at best. And there was a note that IT has still not responded with the text message searches[;] [2] On January 28, I threw up my hands and resubmitted a request for just a subset of data (Dec 18-23). Three other community members submitted like requests for additional weeks…[;] [3] On February 11, I received a letter from Mr. Driscoll, combining all community requests into a single request and citing a fee of $2,436.67. And still no status of the text messages originally requested along with the emails[;] [4] To date, I have received no data[;] [5] The original request was outstanding for 26 days. And the response to my narrowing my request was an increase in fees and again, still nothing about the text messages. Records in Existence 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 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). In this case, based on the Authority’s response and the information provided in Ms. O’Connor’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the Authority possesses “text messages” responsive to Ms. O’Connor’s request. If the Authority 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. § 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”). The Authority must clarify this matter. Issue Previously Addressed It appears that Ms. O’Connor’s appeal also raises issues that were previously addressed in prior determinations. See SPR26/0507 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 26, 2026); SPR26/0929 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 24, 2026). As noted in my March 24th determination, the Authority must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $2,436.67 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Consequently, I am unable to issue a second determination at this time.

Sean Driscoll SPR26/0926 Page 4 March 27, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the Authority is ordered to provide Ms. O’Connor 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. Ms. O’Connor may appeal the substantive nature of the Authority’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Beth O’Connor