Jonathan Dame v. Newton, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20160956)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams . Supervisor ofR ecords November 9, 2016 SPR16/956 David Fleishman Superintendent of Schools City ofNewton- Public Schools Committee 100 Walnut Street Newton, MA 02460 Dear Superintendent Fleishman: I have received the petition of Jonathan Dame of the Newton Tab appealing the most recent response of the City ofNewton- Public Schools Committee (Committee) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Dame requested a copy of a March 2016 report investigating allegations of graffiti at Day Middle School in Newton. The Committee provided a copy of the report, redacted to omit information deemed by the Committee to be exempt pursuant to the first clause of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (c). Mr. Dame has appealed the most recent response regarding this request. Previous determinations This request was the subject of prior appeals to this office by Mr. Dame. See SPR16/374; SPR16/529 Determination ofthe Supervisor of Records (June 21, 2016; August 11, 2016). In closing SPR16/529 I ordered the Committee to either provide a revised response or, in the alternative, provide an unredacted copy of the original report to this office for an in camera review. The Committee chose to provide a revised response, dated September 9, 2016 and written by David M. Connelly of Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP on behalf of the Committee. In camera review Based upon my review of Attorney Connolly's May 6, July 5 and September 9 letters to Mr. Dame, it is the finding of this office that an in camera review of an unredacted copy of the responsive records would facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Public Records Law exemption claims. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). After I complete my review of the document, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Superintendent David Fleishman SPR16/956 Page2 November 9, 2016 My authority to require the submission of documents for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code ofMassachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6); see also G.L. c. 66, § 1. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.03 (defining "custodian" as the government employee who in the normal course of her duties has access to or control over records). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Order Accordingly, the Committee is hereby ordered to provide this office with umedacted copies of the responsive records for in camera review along with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of the claimed exemptions to the responsive records without delay. Please be advised that any cover letter accompanying the materials submitted for in camera review will be considered a public record and will be retained as pa of the file associated with this appeal. cc: Jonathan Dame