Ronald Alexander v. Wellesley, Town of (SPR 20171088)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 18, 2017 SPR17/1088 Ivria G. Fried, Esq. Miyares and Harrington LLP 40 Grove Street, Suite 190 Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Attorney Fried: I have received the petition of Ronald Alexander appealing the response of the Town of Wellesley Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Mr. Alexander requested a redacted version of documents previously produced by the School. This request was the subject of a petition submitted.by the Town. See SPR17/ 899 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 10, 20 17). 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, § lOA( d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless ofphysical 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 O(b )(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. 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, § 1 O(b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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

Ivria G. Fried, Esq. SPR17/1088 Page 2 August 18, 2017 Current appeal On December 7, 2016, Mr. Alexander sought the opportunity to inspect all documents produced by the School Department in response to public records requests. The School Department provided access to all responsive documents with no redactions. According to the Town's June 30th petition to this office, "[a] subsequent review, however, revealed that some of the documents contained Personal Information protected under M.G.L. c.93H. Specifically, documents to which Mr. Alexander was provided access included protected Personal Information of three (3) Massachusetts residents." The Town explained that on January 10, 2017, Town Counsel requested that Mr. Alexander return all copies of documents that he had made in response to the December 7, 2016 request and that "Town Counsel offered to provide Mr. Alexander with a complete set of documents, with Personal Information redacted, at no cost to Mr. Alexander." On June 14, 2017, Town Counsel asserted "[i]fl send you redacted copies before you return the 'originals' to me, you can compare the two documents and I will be specifically directing you to the information that was not supposed to be disclosed to you." Later that same day, Mr. Alexander sent an email to Town Counsel stating "[p] lease hereby consider my request (below) for copies of the documents you are referring to as a public records request." Mr. Alexander continues by stating "[s ]ince you have already offered to provide these documents free of charge, I do not expect there to be any fee associated with the fulfillment of this request." In Mr. Alexander's appeal dated August 11, 2017 he indicates the School had not responded to the June 14th request. Conclusion Subsequent to the opening of the appeal, this office was informed the School provided a response dated July 17, 2017 in which it denies access to the requested redacted versions ofthe records under Exemptions (a) and (c) ofthe Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). Mr. Alexander notes he did not receive this response. The School also provided a similar response on August 17, 201 7. Whereas this matter was opened based upon Mr. Alexander not having received a written response, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Alexander may appeal the substantive nature of the School's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander