The Massachusetts State police, has responded to being “honored” with the Golden Padlock Award by the Investigative Reporters and Editors organization (IRE) “for a lack of transparency”, in its dealings with the media.
The dubious award was presented by the IRE at its annual conference in Philadelphia over the weekend. The Massachusetts State police was cited specifically for “habitually going to extraordinary lengths to thwart public records requests”.
The agency was one of four nation-wide finalists for the 2015 Golden Padlock Award “celebrating the most secretive government agency or individual in the United States.”
According to the IRE summary: “Requests for basic documents [from the Mass State Police] routinely produce refusals, large portions of blacked out documents or demands for tens of thousands of dollars in unjustified fees.”
In response the agency provided WGBH with a statement that reads in part: “I'm sure no journalist would want his or her private information released to the public without reason, and nor should they want that.”
IRE board member, Robert Cribb of The Toronto Star, said the Massachusetts State Police was chosen above all others “for the extraordinary efforts they’ve gone through to undermine the public’s right to know on any number of issues, public requests from journalists across the state that have been met with blacked out documents.” Even though the award is given in jest, said Cribb, “the issues are very real.”
“This is really an award that seeks to bring attention to these issues in a way that we don’t on a daily basis. We don’t really talk about this stuff. We don’t engage in these kinds of things as journalists because we consider this part of doing our job. But I think it’s really important for the public to understand the challenges that are thrown up, because these are not challenges that are thrown up for journalists, these are challenges that are thrown up for the public, cause if we can’t get it they can’t get it.”
Massachusetts' public records law has long been a subject of controversy. In practice the law is designed to provide media and the public with access to government documents and communications, if so requested. But often these requests have been met with declarations from government officials that many files are “off limits” because they contain private information, personnel files and are part of “ongoing investigations”. While these are legitimate exemptions covered by law, many people in and outside of media believe they have been misused to justify denying some public records requests. The Massachusetts State Police is cited as the least compliant.
In its written emailed response the agency stated:
“The cost estimates cited were for requests for voluminous records that required a great deal of searching, much of it involving manual searches or line-by-line review of electronic spreadsheets or databases.”
Cost has often been the reason given by the Massachusetts State Police to turn down certain requests. In a story on this issue by The Boston Globe, the agency said it would cost $42,750 to produce a log of its public record requests.
In addition to the Mass State police three other institutions were finalists for the Golden Padlock Award. The State Police beat out the Department of Defense, which was “honored” for “withholding information about the massacre of 16 civilians in 2012 by U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales,” and the Texas Department of Public Safety “for attacking the media rather than releasing information on the costs and effects of border security”. An IRE board member said that the Mass State Police “was in good company.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Statement from the Massachusetts State Police:
The cost estimates cited were for requests for voluminous records that required a great deal of searching, much of it involving manual searches or line-by-line review of electronic spreadsheets or databases. These requests were enormous in terms of scope of information sought and/or applicable time frame. Thus, they required a commensurate level of effort on our part to ensure that people's personal information, medical information, criminal histories, or other information similarly exempt from public dissemination is not released. I'm sure no journalist would want his or her private information released to the public without reason, and nor should they want that. We extend that same protection to all citizens whose protected information is contained in documents in our possession. Because of the wide scope of many of the requests we receive, the sensitive nature of many of the situations with which we deal, and the broad reach of our agency, many requests require significant redaction and thus result in large cost estimates
