Chrissy Ryan v. Amherst Regional Public Schools (SPR 20200188)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Recordv February 12, 2020 SPR20/0188 Debbie Westmoreland Amherst-Pelham Regional School District 170 Chestnut Street Amherst, MA O1 002 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 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on November 18, 2019, Ms. Ryan requested, "[a]ll communications, documents, emails, meeting notes from executive session 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 ... " P1·evious appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR20/0008 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 14, 2020). The District provided a response to Ms. Ryan on January 30111 • Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal SPR20/0l 88 was opened as a result. Tlte Public Rec01·ds 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. 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 SPR20/0188 . Page 2 February 12, 2020 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. District's January 30'11 response The District's January 30th response stated, "[t]he only records responsive to this request [is] a ... contract [for an individual] which was approved by the School Committee on December 23 and therefore is now available as a public document." The District further responded by asserting that the "minutes of the executive sessions ... have [not] yet been approved by the School Committee for release. Therefore, the executive session minutes of December 16 and December 23, 2019 are being withheld under Open Meeting Law 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 and not this office, I decline to provide a determination as to the status of the executive session minutes and related materials. G. L. c. 30A § 23. It is recommended that the parties contact the Division of Open Government within the Office of the Attorney General should they seek a determination on this issue. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Chrissy Ryan