Stop me if you have heard this one before, but the Massachusetts National Guard has, again, failed to produce public records requested by APCC on a timely basis as required by Massachusetts law. Since failure to produce legally compliant responses to records requests are a recurring phenomenon, an irony since the Guard instructed us to file such requests if we wanted any information about the proposed construction of the multipurpose machine gun range (MPMGR), the question here is why?
It could be that the Guard doesn’t prioritize public records requests. It could be that, despite advising APCC that any information would only come in response to a public records request, the Guard finds our repeated requests for information as response optional. It could also be that the requested documents reveal actions and activity that the Guard wants to suppress from public view. It could be all three or a myriad of other reasons.
Let’s be clear about one thing: The documents we are seeking have to do with the financing of the proposed range. This subject matter has been widely discussed in public and are not national intelligence documents that one would not want to circulate in public. It is widely known that in 2020 funds were identified for the project. It is also widely known, in large part because APCC received documents through an EPA records request that was fully responded to, that the Guard sought construction bids for the project that exceeded the known available funding allocated to the project.
This budget deficit has led to reasonable questions about if, how, and in what ways the Guard has sought additional funds. APCC’s most recent request seeks all relevant public documents that would shed light on the Guard’s pursuit of additional construction funds, despite the pending EPA decision that the MPMGR would pose an unacceptable threat to the Upper Cape Water Supply Reserve and the lack of approval to construct the project from the state’s Environmental Management Commission.
If no responsive documents existed, then the request would presumably be easily and quickly disposed of. Given that we were told last week, after the statutory deadline (see below) for a response had well passed, that “Based upon the size, scope and nature of your public records request it is taking longer than anticipated,” one must wonder what we should expect to see. The mystery could be easily solved by the immediate production of all required documents or, and perhaps in addition, by a simple statement from the Guard that the pursuit of additional construction funds and the awarding of a construction contract will come only after all required permits and approvals have been issued.
What should be easily answered is apparently not.
State records law in relevant sections: M.G.L. Ch 66 sec. 10A(a)(v) provides that the 10 day response shall “identify any public records, categories of records, or portions of records that the agency… intends to produce, and provide a detailed statement describing why the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency… and therefore requires additional time to produce the public records sought.” Sec. (vi) provides that the response shall “identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency… shall produce the public records sought; provided that the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records…“
