Custodian spotlights · Updated 2026-05-12

Some agencies show up in the data again and again. These are the ones worth reading closely.

The Records Project's custodian spotlights are deep reads on specific Massachusetts public-records custodians whose pattern in the SOR appellate corpus warrants close attention. Each spotlight is built around the actual orders the Supervisor of Records has issued — the named requesters, the dollar amounts, the structural failures that produced the outcomes. New spotlights are added as the underlying records reach publication readiness.

01 · Active spotlight · 2026-05-13

Massachusetts State Police

The largest single fee in the entire Massachusetts public-records corpus came from the State Police — $1,877,775, quoted to Gannett reporter Tracy Hinkle for traffic-stop demographic data. The Supervisor of Records denied that one as a violation of the law's bar on fees "designed to limit, deter or prevent access." The next year, the same agency quoted $823,425 to a MuckRock journalist for drone records — and won that one, because the State Police reported a filing date five days after the requester sent the request. Five of the ten largest single fee petitions on record in Massachusetts came from MSP. The share of MSP regular appeals where the Supervisor has ordered MSP to do something has climbed from 22% in 2017 to 75% in 2024. The named requesters on the receiving end are Boston Globe reporters, MuckRock journalists, and ACLU lawyers.

Read the MSP spotlight →

02 · Active spotlight · 2026-05-13

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

A state technology agency that has lost every adjudicated records and Open Meeting Law matter on its record in 2025-26. The only AG Open Meeting Law determination — OML 2025-184, November 2025 — found two violations at one meeting and issued a §23(c) caution that future similar violations may be considered evidence of intent. The Supervisor of Records then denied MassTech's BEAD and GAP fee petitions across two parallel orders: the agency sought to bill requesters $23,800 in hosting and document-platform charges — a platform its own outside counsel separately described in writing as "a free file-sharing resource" — plus outside-counsel labor at $750 per hour (Bob Ross, Greenberg Traurig) and $450 per hour for an associate, all far above the $25-per-hour statutory cap. The Supervisor denied the passthrough. The funding source for Greenberg Traurig's ongoing work on the matter is not on the public record. The state technology collaborative could not honor its own promised remote-meeting access at the meeting that produced the OML violation. The agency's General Counsel — who also serves as Board Secretary, drafts the minutes, and certifies them — has asked the Supervisor to dismiss a records appeal because the requester's expert declarations were "unsworn," while refusing to put any MassTech representative under oath.

Read the MassTech spotlight →

Upcoming spotlights

The next custodians queued for the spotlight format, in rough priority order:

In preparation · The records-litigation cluster

City of Boston

The most-appealed records custodian in Massachusetts — 2,298 appeals through the Supervisor of Records, more than any other agency in the corpus. Beyond the SOR docket, an unusual concentration of active records litigation: matters involving journalists, independent records advocates (including this project's editor), Lawyers for Civil Rights, Boston Globe reporters, MassLandlords, and a dozen more. The City's fee-petition activity is modest compared to MSP, but its disposition mix, sub-office-routing failures, and in-court records record warrant a deeper read. Specific litigant and case detail being verified; workup in progress.

In preparation

Boston Public Health Commission

A separately-chartered quasi-public on the boundary of the Public Records Law. Subject of an active receipt-date / constructive-designation theory under 950 CMR 32.06(1)(c). Spotlight to follow the next AG-level appeal.

In preparation

Dartmouth Police Department

Second statewide in fee-petition volume. Commercial-purpose invocations at a 91%+ rate. The case-study draft is ready for the spotlight format once the dual-prong objection record is paired in.

In preparation

The Medford / Leominster / Sharon / Lakeville pattern

A cross-custodian study of small-to-mid-size police departments running parallel fee-petition strategies against named PI law firms (Snook Law, Brown & Goldberg P.C., others). Spotlight to follow the lateral-pattern enrichment.