Laura H. Ortiz v. Lowell, City of - City Solicitor (SPR 20190212)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords February 13, 2019 SPR19/212 Hannah Pappenheim, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Lowell Law Department 375 Merrimack Street; 3rd Floor Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Attorney Pappenheim: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the City of Lowell (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on August 1, 2018, Ms. Ortiz requested a copy ofrecords that were not received from a previous request regarding "Student Activity Accounts" for several schools: 1. Student Activity Account records 2014-2015 school year: (a) Molloy (b) Lowell Day School (c) Bridge Program ( d) Washington ( e) Lowell High School (f) Freshman Academy 2. Student Activity Account records 2015-2016 school year: (a) Lowell Day School (b) Bridge Program (c ) Washington ( d) Lowell High School ( e) Freshman Academy 3. Student Activity Account records 2016-2017 school year: (a) Lowell Day School (b) Lowell High School ( c) Freshman Academy 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

Hannah Pappenheim, Esq. SPR19/212 Page 2 February 13, 2019 4. Student Activity Account records 2017-2018 school year: (a) Lowell High School (b) Freshman Academy Previous appeals The responsive requests and records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR16/733; SPR18/314; SPR18/545; SPR18/1186 and SPR19/0046 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) (September 27, 2016; March 26, 2018; May 4, 2018; August 17, 2018 and January 16, 2019). The City's response to Ms. Ortiz's May 7, 2018 request On June 8, 2018, in two separate transmissions via email, the City provided records for "Student Activity Accounts" for school years 2010-2011; 2011-2012; 2012-2013; 2013-2014; 2014-2015; 2015-2016; 2016-2017; and 2017-2018. In emails on June 11th and June 21st, Ms. Ortiz emailed you seeking clarification on whether the City has any further records responsive to her request for records regarding the "Student Activity Accounts." After a review of the records provided by the City, Ms. Ortiz wrote on June 11th, " may I ask regarding these Student Activity Account Records that we think appear missing in these attachments in the event that they did not transmit or were coming separately?" On June 11 t\ Ms. Ortiz listed the schools that she was still seeking "Student Activity Account" records for, and questioned whether she may have asked for the incorrect names of the schools, or whether the names she stated in her request are actual schools or were schools in prior years. In my August 1J 1h determination, I found that it was unclear whether the City has further records regarding "Student Activity Accounts" that have not been provided responsive to the particular "names" of schools that Ms. Ortiz has described in her appeal, and whether it has additional records regarding "School Activities Accounts" from the school years 2010-2018 that Ms. Ortiz has not previously received. In both my May 4th and August 1J 1h determinations, I encouraged the parties to work together in order to identify the records sought that have not been provided, including identifying the Ci~' s schools in each of the school years that may have the records responsive to Ms. Ortiz May 4 request and August 1, 2018 further inquiry. A records access officer (RAO) must explain whether it possesses any other responsive records and use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any additional responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b )(vii). In the August 1i 11 determination, I ordered the City to provide Ms. Ortiz with a response to clarify whether the City has further responsive records regarding the City's schools from 2010-2018 concerning "Student Activity Accounts" and provide those records in a manner

Hannah Pappenheim, Esq. SPR19/212 Page 3 February 13, 2019 consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. See SPRl 8/1186 Determination of the Supervisor (August 17, 2018). ih Having received no further response from the City regarding my August 1 determination, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and SPRl 9/0046 was opened as a result. In my January 16, 2019 determination, I ordered the City to provide Ms. Ortiz with a response to her ih August 1st request, the August 1 order and my January 16th determination, in a manner consistent with these orders, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. See SPRl 8/1186 and SPRl 9/0046 Determinations of the Supervisor (August 17, 2018 and January 16, 2019). The City's January 28, 2019 response to SPR18/1186 and SPR19/0046 In its January 28th response, the City provided records responsive to Ms. Ortiz's August 1st request for any missing records from the 2014-2018 school years pertaining to "Student Activity Accounts" at specific schools in the City. The City's January 28th response states, "[a]fter conferring with school department employees, the attached records were located. I believe that these records, combined with those already produced, are all the Student Activity Account documents responsive to your request." After receipt of the City's response and transmittal ofrecords, Ms. Ortiz sent a January 28th email to the City inquiring whether she was to receive any responses for the "Student Activity Accounts" of school years' 2010-2011; 2011-2012; 2012-2013; and 2013-2014 pertaining to specifically-named schools. When she did not receive a response to her email asking for clarification, Ms. Ortiz petitioned the Supervisor, and SPR19/212 was opened. It is Ms. Ortiz's contention, for example, that where the City had an audit conducted of the High School's Student Activity Accounts, the actual records would have been reviewed in conducting the audit. Again, Ms. Ortiz asks that the City clarify what responsive records they have regarding her January 28th list of school years and particular schools' "Student Activity Accounts" from 2010-2018. ?111 To date, the City has not met its burden of responding to the requests or my August 1 and January 16th determinations to clarify whether it possesses further records regarding the requests of school year records from 2010-2018. Order Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Ms. Ortiz with a response to the request, in a ?111 manner consistent with this order, the August 1 order, the January 16th order, and the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. 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 pre@sec.state.ma.us. Failure to do so may result in referral of this matter to the Office of the Attorney General. See G. L. c. 66, § lOA(b).

Hannah Pappenheim, Esq. SPR19/212 Page4 February 13, 2019 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz