MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Andrew McIsaac v. Norfolk County Agricultural High School (SPR 20161176)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 12-13-2016

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20161176 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Andrew McIsaac concerning records held by Norfolk County Agricultural High School, opened 12-13-2016. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20161176
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Andrew McIsaac
Custodian
Norfolk County Agricultural High School
Date Opened
12-13-2016
Date Closed
12-16-2016
Response Provided Date
12-22-2016
Time to Comply
4 business days

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A Williams Supervisor of Records December 16, 2016 SPR16/1176 Dr. Tammy Quinn Superintendent/ Director Norfolk County Agricultural High School 400 Main Street Walpole, MA 02081 Dear Dr. Quinn: I have received the petition of Andrew Mclsaac appealing the response of Norfolk County Agricultural High School (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Mr. Mclsaac requested "all Physician's Statement for Temporary Home or Hospitalization forms received by the School during the 2015-2016 school year." The School responded in an email dated December 13, 2016 in which it denied access to records responsive to Mr. Mclsaac' s request. 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, § 10(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 of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § lO(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 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

Dr. Tammy Quinn SPR16/1176 Page 2 December 19, 2016 responsive records. 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. In the School's December 13 email, it indicated its intent to withhold records responsive to Mr. Mcisaac's request under "the confidentiality of student record laws." However, it is unclear how the responsive records in their entirety, are exempt from disclosure. Furthermore, the School failed to cite specific exemptions or statues in the law that would apply in this case. See Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a). The School must explain, with specificity, whether it is possible to redact any personally identifying information and provide any non-exempt, segregable portion of the records. Furthermore, the School is advised it must cite an exemption to the Public Records Law when denying access to records. I understand a member of my staff contacted you about this appeal. Order Accordingly, the School is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Mclsaac with a revised response, prepared 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.sta .ma.us cc: Andrew Mcisaac