Chrissy Ryan v. Amherst Regional Public Schools (SPR 20200008)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 14, 2020 SPR20/0008 Debbie Westmoreland Amherst-Pelham Regional School District 170 Chestnut Street Amherst,.MA 01002 Dear Ms. Westmoreland: I have received the petition of Chrissy Ryan appealing the response of the Amherst Pelham 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, on November 18, 2019, Ms. Ryan requested, "[a]ll communications, documents, emails, meeting notes from executive sessions regarding contract negotiations between school committee and [an individual]." In its January 2, 2020 response, the District explains "to date, no materials from the Regional School Committee/Union 26 School Committee Executive Session have been approved for release ... the only record ... responsive to .. [the] request is the posted agenda ... " Unsatisfied with the District's response, Ms. Ryan petitioned this office and as a result SPR20/0008 was opened. 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, § lO(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. 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 ·

Debbie Westmoreland SPR20/0008 Page 2 January 14, 2020 It appears Ms. Ryan's appeal is potentially related to the release of a document used at a meeting which would raise issues under the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) and not this office, the parties may wish to contact the AGO about this matter. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. Notwithstanding the above, based on the District's response, it is unclear which exemption it is citing in order to withhold the requested record. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b )(iv) (a written response must "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, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based ... "). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; Reinstein v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemption are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Specifically, the District must.clarify whether it is withholding the record under the Open Meeting Law or any other exemption to the Public Records Law. Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Ryan with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, 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. Sincerely, ~a~ Supervisor of Records cc Chrissy Ryan