Gerard F. Mackin, Jr. v. Weymouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20212459)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Town Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 8, 2021 SPR21/2459 Kathleen A. Deree Town Clerk Town of Weymouth 75 Middle Street Weymouth, MA 02189 Dear Ms. Deree: I have received the petition of Gerard Mackin appealing the response by the Town of Weymouth (Town) 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. Mackin requested “… the minutes of any School Committee meetings in which any claims by former school Dept. [named] employee… were discussed.” On September 9, 2021, Mr. Mackin submitted a duplicate appeal regarding the same request. Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR21/2225 and SPR21/2313 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 14, 2021). On September 24, 2001, the Town responded. Unsatisfied with the Town’s response, Mr. Mackin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2459, 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

Kathleen Deree SPR21/2459 Page 2 October 8, 2021 The Town’s September 24th Response In its September 24th response, the Town cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to redact certain information. In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Town’s claims to redact the records, the Town must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection. After I complete my review of the documents, I will return the records to your custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G.L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the Town is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay.

Kathleen Deree SPR21/2459 Page 3 October 8, 2021 Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Gerard Mackin