Tuke, Jack v. Executive Office of Health & Human Services (SPR 20261323)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 17, 2026 SPR26/1323 Lissette Bermudez Board Support Coordinator Executive Office of Health and Human Services 1 Ashburton Place, Room 1109 Boston, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Bermudez: I have received the petition of Jack L. Tuke, Esq. appealing the response of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (Office) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 3, 2026, Attorney Tuke requested “whatever information and evidence the Department of Public Health has related to [an identified] case.” Specifically, Attorney Tuke sought: [1] Any reports related to this matter [2] Any Video in the Department’s possession related to this matter [3] Any complaints submitted against [an identified individual] which relate to this matter [4] Any other documents or information in the possession of the Department which relate to this matter or will be considered by the Department’s investigator in relation to this matter. The Office responded on April 9, 2026, assigning the request reference number BHPL- 2026-410. Unsatisfied with the Office’s response, Attorney Tuke petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1323, 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). 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

Lissette Bermudez SPR26/1323 Page 2 April 17, 2026 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Attorney Tuke’s interest in obtaining the records shall have no bearing on the public status of the responsive records. It is unclear whether Attorney Tuke may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Attorney Tuke a greater right of access to the responsive records. The Office’s April 9th Response In its April 9, 2026 response, the Office provided a “Record of Standing” redacted pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. In addition, the Office noted that it was withholding “[t]he complaint, administrative documents, correspondence, and other documentary evidence from the investigative file” pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. In addition, the Office stated: If you are the licensee respondent for the investigation, or their attorney, you or your client may be eligible to receive non-public investigative materials for the purpose of responding to the complaint against you or your client’s license. To obtain additional documentation relevant to the investigation, please reach out to the assigned investigator for this investigation.

Lissette Bermudez SPR26/1323 Page 3 April 17, 2026 Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Tuke stated, “I am the attorney for the individual subject to this investigation. I have been informed… that there are items within the possession of the DPH relevant to this investigation. I believe these items are necessary… so that we may fully understand the allegations…” In support of his appeal, Attorney Tuke additionally provided a “Proposed Protective Order” and related correspondence and documentation indicating that the responsive records are related to a currently pending administrative matter before the Department of Public Health’s Bureau of Health Professions Licensure. See Board of Registration in Nursing v. Sectra Okundaye (Docket No. NUR-2024-2969; Investigation No. INV12842.) Active Administrative Proceeding 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In light of the pending matter before the Bureau of Health Professions Licensure (BHPL), I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I additionally decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jack L. Tuke, Esq. Charlena Christiansen