Woldekidan, Belaynesh v. Department of Public Health (SPR 20261174)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2026 SPR26/1174 Helen Rush-Lloyd Records Access Officer Department of Public Health 250 Washington Street Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Rush-Lloyd: I have received the petition of Attorney Abeba Attles appealing the response of the Department of Public Health (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 5, 2026, Attorney Attles sent the following request to the Department: Status of Complaint - The Bostonian Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Center I write to confirm that my office represents the complainant identified in my October 12, 2025 formal complaint regarding The Bostonian Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Center. On October 31, 2025, the office sent a written acknowledgment stating that the Department had received my letter and would review the concerns and determine the most appropriate actions to take with respect to this facility. At this time, I respectfully request an update as to whether the Department has initiated or completed an investigation in response to that complaint, and the current status of any such investigation or enforcement action. Specifically, I would appreciate written confirmation of (1) whether an on-site survey or other investigative steps have been conducted; (2) whether any deficiencies were cited; and (3) whether any corrective action plans, sanctions, or other remedial measures have been required of the facility. Given the seriousness of the concerns raised in the October 12, 2025 complaint, my client is understandably anxious to know what actions have been taken to ensure the safety and wellbeing of residents at the Bostonian Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Center. I therefore request a written status update at your earliest convenience, or guidance on any additional Information needed from any office to facilitate your review. The Department responded on January 8, 2026, and assigned reference number BHCSQ- 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

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR26/1174 Page 2 April 14, 2026 2026-6 to this request. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Attorney Attles petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1174, was opened as a result. In a letter to this office on April 9, 2026, Attorney Attles reiterated various aspects of the appeal petition. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, the status of Attorney Attles and their client will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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, Attorney Attles argues, among other things, the following: The original written public records request was submitted to DPH’s Records Access Officer on January 5, 2025, and DPH produced a limited set of records on January 8 2025 but failed to provide complete and responsive records as required under M. G .L. c. 66, § 10 and 950 CMR 32.00. . . . DPH’s response did not produce any records confirming or denying whether an

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR26/1174 Page 3 April 14, 2026 on-site investigation of the facility was conducted following the filing of Petitioner’s formal complaint. Responsive records include, but are not limited to, survey schedules, inspection reports, site visit logs, internal correspondence regarding the decision to investigate, and any findings or deficiency statements. DPH has produced none of these records. . . . The records produced by DPH reference an internal investigation conducted by the facility, yet the conclusions reached are directly contradicted by documented evidence, including a Boston Police Department incident report. DPH has produced no records reflecting its own evaluation of these contradictions, any analysis of the facility’s investigation, or any final determination regarding the validity of the complaint. Such records are responsive and must be disclosed. . . . Available documentation refers to surveillance footage, but DPH did not produce records regarding the scope, retrieval, review, or preservation of such footage by either DPH or the facility. Records identifying whether footage existed, was reviewed by DPH, or was relied upon in any investigation are responsive and were not produced. . . . DPH’s response produced no records reflecting its assessment of, or any findings related to, the credibility of the resident victim’s account. Documents bearing upon this determination including interview notes, findings memoranda, or assessments prepared by DPH investigators are responsive. To the extent DPH claims any exemption (e.g., investigatory materials under M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26(f)), such a claim must be specifically asserted and a privilege log provided consistent with 950 CMR 32.08(5). . . . The incident involved not only abuse but documented neglect of the resident. DPH’s response did not produce records addressing the neglect component of Petitioner’s complaint. All responsive records related to DPH’s review of the neglect allegations must be produced. . . . DPH’s response is silent as to whether the accused staff member has returned to work at this facility or any other licensed facility in the Commonwealth, and whether any safeguards or conditions were imposed. Records bearing upon this matter including any enforcement action, corrective action plan, correspondence with the facility regarding staffing, or any conditions imposed on the staff member’s return are public records that were not produced. DPH may not withhold such records merely because they refer to an individual; the agency’s own regulatory actions and communications are public records subject to disclosure.

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR26/1174 Page 4 April 14, 2026 The Department’s January 8th Response In its January 8, 2026 response, the Department provided records in redacted form, and cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law for redacting the records. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). Exemption (f) Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90. As a matter of course, witness provided information is essential to efficient and effective law enforcement. This exemption is intended to allow investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so that they will speak openly and voluntarily about matters. Bougas, 371 Mass at 62. Any information contained in a witness statement, which if disclosed would create a grave risk of directly or indirectly identifying the voluntary witness is subject to withholding. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). The disclosure of the names and other identifying information of victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses may deter other potential witnesses and citizens from providing information to law enforcement agencies in future investigations. Therefore, Exemption (f) will allow the withholding of the name and identifying details of any victims, complainants and voluntary witnesses, and where the individuals can be indirectly identified even with redaction. To properly claim that Exemption (f) applies, a custodian must demonstrate that the disclosure of the records would have a prejudicial effect on its investigative efforts. This can be accomplished by describing how the records fall into one of three categories. These are the three categories that justify withholding records under Exemption (f):

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR26/1174 Page 5 April 14, 2026  The records reflect an ongoing investigation, such that any information relating to an ongoing investigation that could potentially alert suspects or targets to the activities of investigative officials;  The records reflect internal techniques, procedures, or sources, such that their disclosure would prejudice not only ongoing, but future law enforcement efforts; or  Disclosure of records would cause a chilling effect, because the exemption allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to individuals so that they will speak openly about matters under investigation. Such records in this third category include: any details in statements that directly or indirectly identify a private citizen who volunteers as a witness; an entire statement if the identity of witnesses is known to the requestor; and information voluntarily provided by an individual or entity to aid in the investigation. In its January 8th response, under Exemption (f), the Department argues the following: Enclosed are the records (13 pages) responsive to your request, the production of which completes the Department’s response to your request. The Department has not withheld any documents from this response. DPH has redacted the names, personal identifiers and information including gender and dates of birth, and personal contact information of reporters, witnesses, and/or the accused pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f) (“Exemption (f)”). The disclosure of this information could compromise future investigative efforts and is therefore not in the public interest. Exemption (f) allows investigative officials to provide an assurance of confidentiality to private citizens so they will speak openly about matters under investigation. All such, the public disclosure of the above referenced redacted information creates a grave risk to private citizens who volunteer as a witness and to the Department’s ability to conduct future investigations. Based on the Department’s January 8th response, I find that to the extent the Department has redacted the identifying information of reporters and voluntary witnesses who require assurances of confidentiality so that they will cooperate with investigations (the “chilling effect”), the Department has met its burden to redact this information under Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). No Duty to Answer Questions Attorney Attles 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). However, 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). In this case, where Attorney Attles submitted to the Department a list of statements and

Helen Rush-Lloyd SPR26/1174 Page 6 April 14, 2026 questions, I find the Department has no duty under the Public Records Law to answer such questions. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Attorney Attles 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: Abeba Attles, Esq.