Ronald Alexander v. Office of the Attorney General (SPR 20191471)

.T he Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 7, 2019 SPR19/1471 Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. Records Access Officer Office of the Attorney General One Ashbmion Place Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Tarrow: I have received the petition of Ronald Alexander appealing the response of the Office of the Attorney General (Office) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Alexander requested the following: 1. The June 24, 2019 request from the office of Assistant Superintendent Timothy Luff "seeking an extension of time for the Natick School Committee (the "Committee") to consider its response to complaints that allege violations of the Open Meeting Law, G.L. C. 30A, §§ 18-25." 2. Any and all records, documentation, emails, etc. that provide evidence that "the Committee has devoted considerable time, effort, and resources over the past year to responding to hundreds of Open Meeting Law complaints as well as requests made under the Open Meeting Law and/or Public Records Law." 3. Any and all records, documentation, emails, etc. that provide evidence that "the Committee has demonstrated a sincere commitment to compliance with the Open Meeting Law, and has made great strides in that regard." 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, § 1O A(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 st.atutory 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, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. 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

Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. SPR19/1471 Page 2 August 7, 2019 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(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Office's response In Mr. Alexander's petition for appeal he asserts that "[i]n a response to a request for records, an RAO must either. .. 1. Disclose the responsive records, or ... 2. Provide a fee estimate for providing responsive records, or ... 3. State that there are no records responsive to the request." Mr. Alexander further asserts that the Office " ... has not done any of these regarding parts #2 and #3 of [his] request ... " In its most recent response, dated July 16, 2019, the Office indicates that with respect to the second and third parts of Mr. Alexander's request " ... the public records law provides for the identification, review, and disclosure of records. It is not designed for the purpose of answering questions or requests styled as interrogatories that require the creation of a narrative or record in order to respond to the request." The Office fmiher indicates that"[a ]lthough [it is] not required to construct a narrative to respond to [Mr. Alexander's] requests, [it] will nevertheless inform [Mr. Alexander] that [its] evaluation of the efforts of the Natick School Committee (the 'Committee') was based on the Division's experience over the course of the last sixteen months." The Office states that Mr. Alexander" ... filed six hundred and three (603) open meeting law complaints against the Committee from March 8, 2018, through October 17, 2018. From February 26, 2019, to the present, [he has] filed eleven (11) additional complaints against the Committee. Finally, the Committee has received one (1) other complaint this year from a different complainant." The Office indicates that it has " ... reviewed the Committee's responses to these complaints and, as stated in several of [its] determinations, have found that the Committee has made changes to its practices and procedures not only to come into compliance with the Open Meeting Law but also to provide for even greater transparency than what the Law strictly requires." The Office indicates that "[i]f [Mr. Alexander] would like copies of these complaints, the Committee's responses, or [the] Division's determination letters, [the Office] can compile these records to send to [him]." Conclusion Based on the correspondence provided to this office, it would appear that the Office has identified the records in its possession that are responsive the second and third part of Mr. Alexander's request. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii) (written response must "identify any public

Lorraine A.G. Tarrow, Esq. SPR19/1471 Page 3 August 7, 2019 records or categories of public records sought that are within the possession, custody, or control of the agency"). This office encourages the parties to communicate further in order to facilitate the Office's provision of requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii) (an agency 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 agency to produce records sought more · efficiently and affordably). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander