Paul Sullivan v. Framingham, City of - Public Schools Department (SPR 20181732)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

December 3, 2018 SPR18/1732

Nancy Piasecki

Executive Director of the Office of the Superintendent Framingham Public Schools

73 Mt. Wayte Ave., Suite 5

Framingham, MA 01702

Dear Ms. Piasecki:

I have received the petition of Paul Sullivan appealing the response of the Framingham Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.MLR. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Sullivan requested a “copy of the response documents provided to the Office of Civil Rights as a result of the request to the Superintendent of schools on April 10, 2018.” In his request, Mr. Sullivan notes “I do not wish to have any specific student identifying information provided.” On November 13, 2018 the School provided Mr. Sullivan with a response. On November 16, 2018, Mr. Sullivan appealed the School’s response to this office stating there are “many other documents [that] should have been provided and with at least 200 documents not provided.”

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 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(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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv).

Appeal

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

Ms. Nancy Piasecki SPR18/1732 Page 2 December 3, 2018

On November 21, 2018, the School provided this office and Mr. Sullivan with a response to Mr. Sullivan’s appeal stating:

“Please be advised that on November 13th, Framingham sent Mr. Sullivan its response to SPR18/1426 which included all documents responsive to his request. A copy of Framingham’s November 13th response was sent to your office. The only redactions in the documents were the names of students on team rosters, which Mr. Sullivan had stated in his request that he did not wish to be provided, and which are exempt from disclosure as personally identifiable information. I emailed the response and documents to Mr. Sullivan on November 13th. Given the volume of the documents, apparently the attachments did not go through. I emailed the attachments i in 6 separate emails on November 15th.”

Mr. Sullivan responded to the School stating the “city is roughly 260 documents short and I do not believe there are 200 teams in Framingham sports that the roosters would account for. The documents the OCR received should be no different than what I request. No exemption has been cited by the city on the need to redact the documents and how the OCR is receiving unredacted documents has not been explained.”

The School must identify the record(s) withheld under each exemption and explain why the exemption applies. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding); See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 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, § 10(a).

In the School’s November 21“ response, they followed up with Mr. Sullivan stating “(t]he only redactions in the documents were the names of students on team rosters, which Mr. Sullivan had stated in his request that he did not wish to be provided...”

The duty to comply with requests for records extends to identifying the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody, or control of the public record sought, if known. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii). Mr. Sullivan states “city is roughly 260 documents short and I do not believe there are 200 teams in Framingham sports that the roosters would account for,” It is unclear what records the School is withholding or if the records are not in the School’s possession. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(ii), (b) (iii).

This office encourages both parties to communicate further if needed. Mr. Sullivan may ask the School for a more refined search in order for the School to provide the responsive records in a more efficient manner. See G, L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Ms. Nancy Piasecki SPR18/1732 Page 3 December 3, 2018

Conclusion

Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide a response consistent with this determination, the Public Record Law, and its Regulation within ten business days. A copy of such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us.

Sincerely,

Lecce. Muay.

Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records

ce: Mr. Paul Sullivan