Jim Haddadin v. Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District (SPR 20191539)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords August 16, 2019 SP~l9/1539 Judith MacDougall Records Access Officer Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District 166 Mt. Prospect Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. MacDougall: I have received the petition of Jim Haddadin of NBC] 0 Boston appealing the response of the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Haddadin requested "copies of all communications, written or electronic, received by the district from Lucini Bus Lines regarding the June 4, 2019 incident in which a student suffered a medical emergency on a school bus parked outside LaLibe1ie Elementary School." Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR19/1338 Determination of the 111 Supervisor of Records (July 18, 2019). In my July 18 determination I ordered the District to provide Mr. Haddadin with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with the order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The District responded on August 1, 2019. Mr. Haddadin appealed and SPR19/1539 was opened as a result. Tlte Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all govermnental 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). 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

Judith MacDougall SPR19/1539 Page 2 August 16, 2019 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. Current appeal In a July 2, 2019 response the District indicated "[a]s you know, the above incident is currently an open police investigation. Therefore, we will not furnish any items that may diminish the integrity of the investigation as advised by First Assistant District Attorney, Patrick Bomberg of the Bristol County District Attorney's Office. Should you have any further questions or requests, please direct them to Mary Lee of the Bristol County District Attorney's Office." In my July 18th determination I found the District had not met its burden to establish how the responsive records may be withheld in their entirety under Exemption (f). In the District's August 1st response you indicate "[t]he [D]istrict has one responsive document, which is being provided with this letter. That document has been redacted pursuant to General Laws c. 4, § 7(26)(a), G. L. c. 71, § 34D-H, 603 C.M.R 23, and Family Education Rights Privacy Act which provide for, among other things, the exemption of student records from the Public Records Law. Specifically, bus routes were redacted as they contain information related to student addresses, and bus arrival/departure times." You further note that "[t]he document shows an attachment ofa video clip. That clip is being withheld based on the same exemption cited above as it depicts multiple students and, therefore, would be considered a student record." · In his appeal petition Mr. Haddadin indicates the District" ... furnished an eight-page PDF document, which is almost entirely redacted. There is only scant description of the document, which appears to contain email communications, and makes reference to a video clip." He objects to the District's exemption claims and notes, in part, "[t]o the extent that any portion of the material is exempt from disclosure, the remainder must be made available for public inspection." Despite the District's August 1st response, I find it is unclear how an exemption applies to each redaction within the responsive record provided to Mr. Haddadin. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (b )(iv) (written response must "identify any records, categories ofrecords or pmiions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based ... "). In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the District's exemption

Judith MacDougall SPR19/1539 Page 3 August 16, 2019 claims, the District must provide this office with un-redacted copies of the records at issue for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the document, I will return the record to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. · Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined. in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a · promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Order Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copy of the record at issue for in camera inspection without delay. The District may provide this office with an explanation of its position regarding the applicability of an exemption to the responsive records. Please be advised that, unlike the materials provided for in camera inspection, any such additional correspondence would be placed in the file for this appeal and would be subject to public disclosure as a public record. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: .Jim Haddadin