Christine Carey v. Hull Public Schools (SPR 20200817)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 1, 2020 SPR20/0817 Judith E. Kuehn Superintendent – Records Access Officer Town of Hull Public Schools 11 Harborview Road Hull, MA 02045 Dear Superintendent Kuehn: I have received the petition of Christine Carey appealing the response of the Town of 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, Ms. Carey requested: “any documents showing contact between [an identified person] and any former student for the date range of January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Examples of responsive documents include emails from the [identified person’s] school email address; text messages using [identified person’s] school phone, or any sort of contact via social media using any sort of property belonging to or paid for by the [School].” In a May 18, 2020 response, the School advised Ms. Carey that her request does not comply with the Public Records Law. In addition, regarding the request for all text messages using the identified person’s school phone, you informed Ms. Carey that the School did not issue the identified person with a phone. In its May 18, 2020 response, the School asked Ms. Carey for clarification and modification of the request by narrowing the scope. The response to Ms. Carey states, “…the [r]equest includes a specific date range (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019), it includes a number of descriptions that are very broad and do not reasonably identify the records you seek.” For example, the School asserts that Ms. Carey did not define contact when she requested, “any documents showing contact between…and any former student.” You also asked for clarification regarding former students, stating, “[d]o you mean former students of the Hull Public Schools or something else? Also, please be advised that it is unclear how (or even if) [the School] will be able to determine whether an individual was a former student…if, for instance, they are only identified in a record by a non-descript email 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 E. Kuehn, Superintendent SPR20/0817 Page 2 June 1, 2020 address…” Furthermore, Ms. Carey’s request seeks, “any sort of contact via social media using any sort of property belonging to or paid for by the Hull Schools.” The School found this particular requested item to be very broad and difficult to understand; therefore, the School sought clarification for this item. The School informed Ms. Carey that once she clarifies the request, which she may do via email, the School will respond in accordance with the Public Records Law. As a result, Ms. Carey contacted this office. In her May 19th email to this office, Ms. Carey asked for a decision on the response she received. This office asked whether Ms. Carey wished to appeal, and what the basis of her appeal was. Ms. Carey asserted, “[y]es, I would like to appeal the response. The request cannot be more specific. Emails, texts, etc.” Ms. Carey should be aware that a request under the Public Records Law must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a 2019 case, 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. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087, 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). Accordingly, I encourage the parties to communicate further as Ms. Carey may wish to modify and/or clarify her request to the School in order to reasonably describe the requested records. I consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Christine Carey