Eoin Higgins v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20212023)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records August 19, 2021 SPR21/2023 Christine M. Wilda Associate Chancellor for Compliance University of Massachusetts, Amherst 340 Whitmore Building Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Eoin Higgins appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts Amherst (University) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 23, 2021, Mr. Higgins requested the following: [A]ll emails and attachments from November 23, 2020 to July 23, 2021 from Christine Wilda and the Records Access Office…having to do with the CD-1 race, [two named individuals], and the local, state, college, and national Democratic Party; as well as requests from [another individual] and any other journalists for records about the above. This includes, but is not limited to, any and all emails and attachments from all email addresses within the records access office pertaining to, from, or addressed to [a list of 16 individuals and groups]. The University responded on August 10, 2021, indicating that it intended to provide responsive records, and directing Mr. Higgins to another office for records to which it did not have access. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Mr. Higgins appealed, and this case was opened as a result. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Higgins states that “[n]o reason is given for the unrelated denials for the president’s office, those should be individually responded to” and “[t]here is no indication that the responsive records will be produced.” Subsequently, I learned that the University provided a supplemental response. 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

Christine M. Wilda SPR21/2023 Page 2 August 19, 2021 Conclusion Given that this appeal was opened based on the University’s August 10th response, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Mr. Higgins may further appeal the substantive nature of the University’s subsequent response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Eoin Higgins