Jorge Teixeira v. Hull, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20200768)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 27, 2020 SPR20/0768 Judith Kuehn Town of Hall – Public Schools 18 Harborview Road Hull, MA 02045 Dear Ms. Kuehn: I have received the petition of Jorge Teixeira appealing the response of the Hull Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on April 25, 2020, Mr. Teixeira requested “documentation on the date that the school committee was first notified about the former student’s allegations that eventually led to the removal of the superintendent from campus.” The School provided a response on May 8, 2020. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Teixeira petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/0768, was opened as a result. 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, § 10A(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, § 10(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, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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 Kuehn SPR20/0768 Page 2 May 27, 2020 The School’s May 8th response In its May 8, 2020 response, the School cites Chawla, a decision which analyzes the reasonable description requirement of a public records request. The School states that “[t]he use of the phrase ‘documentation on the date’ in [Mr. Teixeira’s] request is the type of the very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of your request and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently related. See Jaideep Chawla, (2019).” The School contends that Mr. Teixeira’s request “does not satisfy the statutory standard set forth in G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) because it calls for non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of the phrase[] ‘documentation on the date.’” The School, however, notes that “. . . the full Hull School Committee was first notified about a former student’s allegations during an Executive Session of the School Committee that was held on Wednesday January 29, 2020.” Current appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Teixeira states the following: “I am appealing [the School’s] response to my request. Hull did not provide any documentation to support their response. I look forward to your support on this matter. . . .” Reasonable description of records sought Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id. Based on the foregoing, I find it is unclear which specific records Mr. Teixeira is requesting from the School. Accordingly, if Mr. Teixeira, by indicating that “Hull did not provide any documentation to support their response[,]” seeks any records aside from the information provided by the School, Mr. Teixeira may wish to clarify his request in order to reasonably describe the requested records. This office encourages the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide the requested public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i); see also G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality 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 municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Judith Kuehn SPR20/0768 Page 3 May 27, 2020 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jorge Teixeira