Allen Nitschelm v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District (SPR 20161106)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A Williams Supervisor of Records December 16, 2016 SPR16/1106 D.M. Moschos, Esq. Mirick, O'Connell, DeMallie & Lougee, LLP 100 Front Street Worcester, MA 01608 Dear Attorney Moschos: I have received the petition of Allen Nitschelm, on behalf of Acton Forum, appealing the Acton-Boxborough Regional School District's (School) response to his requests for public records. G. L. c. 66 § lO(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, on February 16, 2015 and October 18, 2015 Mr. Nitschelm requested copies of the minutes from executive session meetings held by the School Committee. The School provided responsive minutes with certain portions redacted. Previous appeal This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR16/297 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 24, 2016); SPR16/688 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 16, 2016); SPR16/938 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 4, 2016). In my November 4 determination I ordered the School to provide this office with unredacted 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. The School responded to this order in a letter dated December 2, 2016 by providing an unredacted copy of the responsive records, except for the attorney-client privileged sections. This appeal (SPR16/938) was opened in order to review the records submitted for in camera review. I would like to thank the School for its cooperation. Current appeal The School has provided several responses to this request. In a response dated October 14, 2016 you addressed each redaction made within minutes from six (6) executive sessions that took place on the following dates: October 9, 2014, December 11, 2014, January 22, 2015, March 19, 2015, June 25, 2015, and July 22, 2015. The School cited various exemptions to the 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

D.M. Moschos, Esq. SPR16/1106 Page 2 December 16, 2016 Public Records Law to justify these redactions, including Exemptions (a), (c), and (f). G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c), (f). The School also redacted information under the attorney-client privilege and cited M.G.L. c. 32 § 22(f) in support of this position. In the School's October 14 response, you indicate that redactions were made under the Public Records Law as well as the Open Meeting Law. With respect to the Open Meeting Law, the School cites, in relevant part: When the purpose for which a valid executive session was held has been served, the minutes, preparatory materials and documents and exhibits of the session shall be disclosed unless the attorney-client privilege or 1 or more of the exemptions under said clause Twenty-sixth of said section 7 of said chapter 4 apply to withhold these records, or any portion thereof, from disclosure. G. L. c. 30A § 22(f) An interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) and not this office. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. However, whereas the School does not appear to claim the lawful purpose for the session remains ongoing, I find this office may opine on the School's exemption claims made under the Public Records Law. October 9, 2014 minutes Upon review of the materials submitted in camera, I find the School met its burden to justify the following redactions within these minutes: 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8. However, the School has not met its burden to justify the remaining redactions. December 11, 2014 minutes Upon review of the materials submitted in camera, I find the School met its burden to justify the following redactions within these minutes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 31. However, the School has not met its burden to justify the remaining redactions. January 22, 2015 minutes Upon review of the materials submitted in camera, I find the School met its burden to justify the following redactions within these minutes: 1 and 2. However, the School has not met its burden to justify redaction #3. March 19, 2015 minutes Upon review of the materials submitted in camera, I find the School met its burden to justify the following redactions within these minutes:

D.M. Moschos, Esq. SPR16/1106 Page 3 December 16, 2016 redaction # 1, but only the portion redacted under the attorney client privilege. I find the School has not meet its burden to withhold the remaining portion ofredaction #1 as well as redaction #2. June 25, 2015 minutes Upon review of the materials submitted in camera, I find the School met its burden to justify the following redactions within these minutes: 1, 2, and 4. The School has not met its burden to justify the remaining redactions. July 22, 2015 minutes Upon review, of the materials submitted in camera, I find the School met its burden only to justify redaction #2 within these minutes. However, the School has not met its burden to justify the remaining redactions. Conclusion In conclusion, for those redactions described above where the School has not met its burden to justify redactions, I find the School has not specifically explained how this information is exempt under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f). See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 297 F. Supp. 2d 252, 270 (D.D.C. 2004) (explaining an in camera review is no substitute for the Government's obligation to provide detailed justifications). Accordingly, the School is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Nitschelm with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and .its Regulations. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at re sec.st te.ma.us. Supervisor of Records cc: Allen Nitschelm