Spaulding, John v. Natick, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20150027)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords March 17, 2015 SPRlS/027 Dr. Peter Sanchioni, Ph.D. Town ofNatick- Public Schools 13 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Dr. Sanchioni: I have received the petition of John Spaulding appealing the response of the Town of Natick Public Schools (Schools) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Spaulding requested copies of eight categories of records regarding residency requirements for the Schools. The Schools responded, stating no records exist responsive to six of the eight categories. The Schools denied access to records responsive to Requests 5 and 6, claiming they are student records. No statutory authority was cited to support this denial. The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(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 town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). The Public Records Law states that "the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies." G. L. c. 66, § 10(c) (emphasis added). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995). The response by the Schools did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. Accordingly, the Schools is advised that to comply with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations it must provide specificity with respect to any denial of access to public records. This requires a records custodian to not only cite an exemption, but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records. It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. I d. Subsequent to receiving the School's response to his request Mr. Spaulding replied, seeking further information. It does not appear that the Schools responded to this subsequent communication. I find the Schools failed to meet its burden under the law by this nonresponse. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Dr. Peter Sanchioni, Ph.D. SPR15/027 Page Two March 17, 2015 The Schools denied access to records responsive to Requests 5 and 6. The Schools failed to cite an exemption to support this denial. Further the Schools failed to respond to Mr. Spaulding's supplementary communications, meant to clarify his request. Accordingly, the Schools is hereby ordered within ten (1 0) days to complete a full and thorough search of its files, review each individual responsive record and to provide Mr. Spaulding with a response made in compliance with this order, the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. If the Schools maintains that any portion of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure it must, within ten (1 0) days provide to Mr. Spaulding a written explanation, with specificity, how a particular exemption applies to each record. This administrative appeal is ow closed. cc: Mr. John Spaulding