Craig Haller v. Brookline, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20201582)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 16, 2020 SPR20/1582 Suzanne McCormick-de Boer Brookline Public Schools 333 Washington Street Brookline, MA 02445 Dear Ms. McCormick-de Boer: I have received the petition of Craig Haller appealing the response of the Brookline 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 August 25, 2020, Mr. Haller requested “[t]he last five (5) annual reports of bullying incident data sent to DESE in compliance with Mass Chapter 86 s 4 as described in the Public Schools of Brookline Policy Manual, Section J7V.” The School provided the responsive data. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Haller petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR20/1582, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, there were several correspondences between the School and Mr. Haller. 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

Suzanne McCormick-de Boer SPR20/1582 Page 2 September 16, 2020 Current appeal In the School’s September 3, 2020 response, it enclosed a copy of a document named “Offense Summary Report . . .” in redacted form. In his appeal petition, Mr. Haller states “I believe they are over-redacted especially since there is no PPI in the information.” In a September 4, 2020 email correspondence, the School indicates that “[it] report[s] bullying incidents in the Offense Summary Report which also lists many other offenses (for example alcohol use or drug use). [The School] redacted the other offenses since Mr. Haller only requested bullying data. [The School would] be happy to provide him other (public) data if he would like to clarify what else he is looking for.” In an email correspondence on September 7, 2020, Mr. Haller indicates “. . . I am only looking for bullying data. According to what DESE has told me, and what they show on their public website, is that the data also contains the student group information. For instance, during the 2018-2019 school year, DESE reports for Brookline that there was one male, high needs, multi-race, student with disabilities disciplined for bullying. This is the information I am seeking with my record request for the years in my request.” In a September 9, 2020 email correspondence, the School includes a link to DESE’s website and states “[t]his same public DESE web page also has the other information (the years in your request) you are looking for. . . . [Mr. Haller] can use the drop down menus . . . to look for previous school years and different subgroups of students on this website.” 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 the specific information Mr. Haller is requesting from the August 25th request seeking the “[t]he last five (5) annual reports of bullying incident data . . .” In his September 7th email correspondence, Mr. Haller states that according to DESE’s website, “. . . the data also contains the student group information. For instance, during

Suzanne McCormick-de Boer SPR20/1582 Page 3 September 16, 2020 the 2018-2019 school year, DESE reports for Brookline that there was one male, high needs, multi-race, student with disabilities disciplined for bullying. This is the information I am seeking with my record request for the years in my request.” Mr. Haller is reminded that a requestor may petition the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) only after a written request has been made to the records access officer (RAO) of the governmental entity that creates or receives the records. 950 C.M.R. 32.01(1). Additionally, the written request must reasonably describe the public records sought. Id. The information in Mr. Haller’s September 7th correspondence was not described in Mr. Haller’s original request. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the Schools to provide any records in its possession that Mr. Haller is seeking. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Craig Haller