Peter F. Carr II v. Weymouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20180986)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 19,2018 SPR181986 Nancy Nevils, Esq. Stoneman, Chandler & Miller LLP 99 High Street Boston, MA 02 1 10 Dear Attorney Nevils: I have received the petition of Peter Carr, Esq. appealing the response of Weymouth Public Schools (School or School District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 5 10A; see - 950 C .M. K .32 .M (1) . Specilically, Mr. Jorge 1e ixeira requested "[slettlement agreements entered into by your School District with parents and guardians, from January 1,2011 through today, relative to the provision of special education services andlor educational placement(s) for students with disabilities, redacted of all personally identifiable information." The School initially provided a response dated September 25,2017 in which it provided responsive records with portions redacted under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR171167 1 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 18,2017 ); SPR181276 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 14,2018 ; April 19,2018 ); SPR181918 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 5,2018 ). In my April 19" determination I found that upon in camera review of the responsive records, the School had not met its burden to withhold all the information described by Attorney Carr. I ordered the School to provide Attorney Carr responsive records in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The School responded in a letter dated May 7,2018 by providing less-redacted versions of responsive records that disclosed information such as financial terms and applicable dates. Subsequent to opening SPR181918, the School provided a supplemental response on July 4,201 8 and Attorney Carr submitted additional correspondence on July 5,2018. This appeal (SPR181986) was opened to address the issues raised in these correspondences. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (61 7) 727-2832. Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre * pre@sec.state.ma.us

Nancy Nevils, Esq. Page 2 July 19,2018 Current appeal In his appeal petition, Attorney Carr objects to the redaction of educational placement information. In its July 4thr esponse, the Department explains it provided educational placement information in responsive agreements numbered 7 through 9. With respect to the redaction of placement information in agreements numbered 1 through 4, the School asserts it did so because it "had so few students attending those specific out-of-district schools in those agreements." The School also provides additional information regarding the applicability of Champa v. Weston Pub. Sch., 473 Mass. 86 (2015) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA) v. Dep't of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280 (2017). The Champa Court provides guidance on the applicability of certain statutes as they operate through Exemption (a), as well as Exemption (4. With respect to Exemption (a), the Court refers to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and found "[tlhe analysis to determine what redaction is necessary will be a case-by-case determination that considers the request, the school and the community, and the availability to the requester of other information that indirectly identifies the student. 34 C.F.R. 55 99.3, 99.31(b)(l)." Id. at 93. The Court further indicates the following: The agreements may contain information that amounts to an unwarranted invasion of the student's personal privacy. As previously discussed, the agreements may link the name of the individual student (and his or her family) to information about the services and programming the child will receive and information about the child's disability, progress, and needs. Further, the agreements are likely to identify the out-of-district school, which may indirectly identify the child's disability. This type of information is highly personal, and disclosure may result in embarrassment and potentially lead to stigma, bringing it within the scope of exemption (c). Id, at 97. - With respect to Exemption (c), the Court asserts "[iln assessing whether the documents contain identifying information, the inquiry must be considered 'not only from the viewpoint of the public, but also from the vantage of those who [are familiar with the individual].' Dep't of Id. the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 380 (1976)." at 97-98. In the July 4th response, you provide additional information regarding the redactions at issue and explain the School "continues to be concerned that there were so few students from School District in attendance at the special education schools in agreements 1-4 during the relevant time periods that it would not be difficult for someone to piece together information to determine these students' identities if the special education schools attended are disclosed." You

Nancy Nevils, Esq. Page 3 July 19,201 8 further assert that "in revealing the names of the out-of-district special education schools these students attended, personal privacy concerns are implicated because, by knowing the school attended, one may indirectly identify the child's disability or medical diagnosis to the public." The School indicates that it "reviewed the requested settlement agreements and, in good faith, redacted educational placement information in some agreements, but not others, given the concerns articulated above. School District contends that the public interest in obtaining the names of the out-of-district schools these four students attended does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of the invasion of these students' privacy, thus requiring that the names of these schools be redacted." In an email dated July 5,2018 Attorney Carr indicates he continues to object to the redaction of educational placements within the remaining settlement agreements. He specifically notes that the redactions in agreements 7 and 8 both involve placements at South Shore Education Collaborative, which he notes is "by all accounts, is an extension of the public school district." Attorney Carr asserts "[tlhe identities of attendees of the South Shore Education Collaborative funded by the District are likely already included in other public materials. I suspect these are the primary reasons why Weymouth Public Schools chose to disclose and did notredact the identity of the South Shore Education Collaborative, unlike the other private school placements that remain redacted from the agreements produced by the District." He also notes that no specific placement is mentioned in agreement 9. In a subsequent response from July 5thy ou cite 603 CMR 28.02(14) and explain "a collaborative is an 'out-of-district' placement." You also note that the South Shore Educational Collaborative "is a separate entity unto itself; it is inaccurate to say that disclosing placement at SSEC is comparable to disclosing attendance within the School District." With respect to agreement 9 you indicate "it does reference placement information in paragraph 1; the placement is an in-district placement." In light of the School's production of less-redacted records, as well as its responses regarding the applicability of Champa to the records at issue, including the Supreme Judicial Court's finding that "agreements are likely to identify the out-of-district school, which may indirectly identify the child's disability," I find the School has met its burden to withhold the educational placements within the remaining settlement agreements under Exemption (c). See id. at 97. Sincerely, v Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Peter F. Carr, II., Esq.