Steven Fitzgerald v. Everett, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20211203)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 27, 2021 SPR21/1203 Priya Tahiliani Superintendent Everett Public Schools 121 Vine Street Everett, MA 02108 Dear Ms. Tahiliani: I have received the petition of Steven Fitzgerald appealing the response of the Everett Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 8, 2021, Mr. Fitzgerald requested “…[a] copy of all material received as endorsed by the Certificate of Receipt of Open Meeting Law Material for Everett Mayor and School Committee member Carlo DeMaria signed and dated January 19, 2021, pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, § 20(h) and 940 CMR 29.04.” On May 3, 2021, the School responded. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Fitzgerald petitioned this office and this appeal SPR21/1203 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. 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

Priya Tahiliani SPR21/1203 Page 2 May 27, 2021 The School’s May 3rd response In its May 3rd response the School stated, “[p]lease see the enclosed documents as they serve as all responsive documents to your request.” Current Appeal In his current appeal, Mr. Fitzgerald states “…[t]here should be other documents that must comply with the Open Meeting Law when discussing Open Meeting Law Materials and the School Department has not cited any exemptions when responding.” In a telephone conference with a School representative and a staff attorney, the School indicated that it was unclear which specific records Mr. Fitzgerald was requesting regarding the Open Meeting Law and Open Meeting Law materials. Based on the School’s May 3rd response, it is unclear which specific materials Mr. Fitzgerald is requesting. Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c.66, § 10(a)(i). 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). Conclusion Please be aware that all petitions for appeal of a response by a records access officer must be made within 90 calendar days of the date of the response by a records access officer. See 32.08(1)(d). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Steven Fitzgerald