Michael DiPronio v. Natick, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20160350)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords June 15, 2016 SPR16/350 Mr. Timothy Luff Director of Student Services Town of Natick-Public Schools 13 East Central Street Natick, MA 01760 Dear Mr. Luff: I have received the petition of Michael DiPronio appealing the response of the Town of Natick-Public Schools (School District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1 O(b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, on March 6, 2016 Mr. DiPronio requested a copy of four categories of records. 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, § 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). 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, § 1 0(c ); see also District 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 ofthe responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 1 O(a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2) (where cost of complying with a request for public records is expected to exceed ten dollars ($10.00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Mr. Timothy Luff SPR16/350 Page 2 June 15, 2016 To assist in requesting and responding to requests for public records please refer to our publication, A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This document is available on the Internet, free of charge, at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf. Attorneys on my staff are available during regular business hours to answer general questions regarding the Public Records Law. In addition, members of my staff will visit a records custodian in person to conduct training workshops on the Public Records Law upon request. Please contact my office directly at the telephone number provided in this determination for further information. Prior public records appeal-SPR16/292 In Mr. DiPronio's prior appeal, SPR16/292 the School District had failed to provide the responsive records within a reasonable time after receipt of funds to cover the written, good faith estimate provided by the School District. In a May 11, 2016letter, Mr. DiPronio informed this office that he received redacted copies of responsive records. Whereas this appeal was opened based upon the School District's failure to provide the responsive records in a timely manner, I closed the administrative appeal upon Mr. DiPronio's receipt of the records. Basis of this appeal-SPR16/350 In Mr. DiPronio's May 11, 2016 petition, he states that he is appealing the School District's provision of copies of redacted "out-of-district placement agreements between the Town of Natick-Public Schools and the parents," the redacted "legal bills," and the failure to provide him with copies of "legal representation contracts or agreements." Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, I understand an attorney on my staff provided you with a copy ofthe appeal file. You provided Mr. DiPronio with a more detailed supplemental response dated June 8, 2016 concerning the redactions and exemption claims. Status of the requester Mr. DiPronio has stated in his petition that while he can understand that the names of parents other than him were redacted from the responsive legal billing records, he cannot understand why his name was redacted. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requesters. Mr. DiPronio's status has no bearing on whether he may receive un-redacted records in response to a request under the Public Records Law. The public records statute does not provide a "standing requirement" but extends the right to examine to any person whether intimately involved with the subject matter of the records he seeks or merely motivated by idle curiosity. See Bougas v. ChiefofPolice ofLexington, 371 Mass. 59,64 (1976). Accordingly, I find the School District acted properly in treating Mr. DiPronio's request as it would a request from any other person.

Mr. Timothy Luff SPR16/350 Page 3 June 15, 2016 Conclusion As indicated above, on June 8 the School District provided Mr. DiPronio with a more detailed response concerning the redactions and withholding of records. Whereas subsequent to the opening of this appeal the School District provided a more detailed response to the request, I will consider this appeal closed. Mr. DiPronio may appeal the substantive nature of the June 8 response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). cc: Mr. Michael DiPronio