Christine McCue Potts v. Medfield Public Schools (SPR 20191503)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supen>isor ofR ecords August 9, 2019 SPR19/1503 Jeffrey Marsden, Ed. D Superintendent Medfield Public Schools 459 Main Street, 3rd Floor Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Dr. Marsden: I have received .the petition of Christine McCue appealing the response of the Medfield Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on March 12, 2019, Ms. McCue requested the following records: "1. Copies of Medfield School Committee Executive Session minutes for the list of dates in the attached document. 2. Copies of all written communications since April 1, 2018 between Superintendent Marsden and/or any member of his staff, and/or any member of Medfield School Committee, related to his contract, including, but not limited to, re-opening negotiations. 3. Copies of all electronic communication exchanged between Medfield School Committee members ... (including but not limited to message sent and received via scchair@email.medfield.net) between Dec. 1, 2018 and March 11, 2019, excluding meeting scheduling messages, and especially including any communication related to the superintendent contract. 4. A copy of the e-mail (in its entirety) that School Committee Member ... receiyed and read aloud at the March 11, 2019 public meeting that contained a copy of the e-mail distributed by me. 5. Copies of any written communication (e lectronic and/or hard copy) between Superintendent Marsden, and/all principals, teachers, staff and/or other administrators/leadership team members, school committee members (former and present), and/or former Police Chief ... , telated to:" i. "Dr. Marsden's presence at a 1st grade teacher/common planning meeting in December 201 7 or January 2018; 11. "My presence in the high school in the late afternoon of January 17, 2018;" One Ashbmion Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727- 5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us

Jeffrey Marsden, Ed. D SPR19/1503 Page 2 August 9, 2019 iii. Any/all communication about me (including reference to Superintendent Marsden' s letter to me) as it relates to the January 29, 2018 School Committee Meeting/Budget Hearing, including but not limited to messages exchanged with [a n identified individual], and arrangements for or with the Resource Officer who was present at the meeting." Previous appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPRl 9/0767 Dete1mination of the Supervisor of Records (April 24, 2019). In my April 24th determination, I found that the School had not met its burden to withhold responsive records from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. I also directed the School to provide Ms. McCue with a revised, good faith estimate for the cost of complying with her request consistent with the order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations. Following the April 24th determination, the School provided a response on June 21, 2019. Having not received ce1iain records, Ms. McCue petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR19/1503, was opened as a result. Ms. McCue indicates that this appeal pertains to only item 5 of her original request. While this appeal was pending, the School provided a supplemental response dated August 8, 2019. 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, § 1O (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, § 1O (b )(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The School's June 2151 response In its June 21, 2019 response, the School had stated that " ... [u ]pon further review of the Supervisor's April 24, 2019 order, the [School] does not dispute Ms. McCue's allegation that she should not be assessed a fee for her March 12 records request. Accordingly, the [School] will not require Ms. McCue to pay the fee referenced in the May 8 email to her ...."

Jeffrey Marsden, Ed. D SPR19/1503 Page 3 August 9, 2019 In her appeal petition, Ms. McCue claims that" ... the Records Custodian had agreed to [] waive all fees associated with providing the outstanding records ( all others have been received), and had also previously agreed to provide them, yet I have still not received the records [r esponsive to item 5]." The School's August 81 supplemental response " In its August 8, 2019 supplemental response, the School indicates that it has delayed in providing responsive records because, it" ... has been dealing with a lack of staff availability since school ended and the summer began ... [a nd] has advised Ms. [McCue] at numerous points of the lack of staff availability and the communication challenges during the summer months." However, the School provided a record indicating that it is responsive to item 5 of Ms. McCue's request. Additional responsive records In response to the School's supplemental response, Ms. McCue claims that" ... a lengthy letter sent by my attorney to [Dr.] Marsden in spring 2018 that he was required to share with others, yet no record of him doing so has yet to be provided." Ms. McCue further claims the following: [i.] Dr. Marsden's presence at a 1st grade teacher/common planning meeting in December 201 7 or January 2018 - no documents provided, even though there was electronic communication related to this meeting between [3 identified individuals] and one or more Memorial School staff members. [ii.] [m ]y presence in the high school in the late afternoon of January 17, 2018 - only school committee e-mail provided; no other documents provided, even though there was electronic communication between Superintendent Marsden and Medfield High School principal ... , among others noted; [iii.] [a]ny/all communication about me (including reference to Superintendent Marsden's letter to me) as it relates to the January 29, 2018 School Committee Meeting/Budget Hearing .... None of these requested documents have been provided even though there was electronic communication exchanged prior to the January 29, 2018 meeting regarding, but not limited to, a scheduled meeting at the police station. Ms. McCue further claims that "Superintendent Marsden also did not share actual, electronic communications between him, Chief Meaney and others about the 'incident' noted in the Jan. 17, 2018 e-mail. ..." In accordance with the Public Records Law, a custodian is expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist the requestor in obtaining the desired information. The duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request.

Jeffrey Marsden, Ed. D SPR19/1503 Page4 August 9, 2019 See G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(ii). In light of Ms. McCue's claims, I find the School must confirm whether additional r.ecords exit that may be responsive to item 5. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. McCue with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Sincerely, fUuu~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Christine McCue