← Back to Search
Gerry Mroz v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SPR 20212563)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 10-01-2021
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20212563 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Gerry Mroz concerning records held by Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, opened 10-01-2021. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20212563
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Gerry Mroz
- Date Opened
- 10-01-2021
- Date Closed
- 10-18-2021
- Response Provided Date
- 08-26-2021
- Time to Comply
- 7 Business Days
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 18, 2021 SPR21/2563 Helene Bettencourt Records Access Officer Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148-4906 Dear Ms. Bettencourt: I have received the petition of Gerry Mroz appealing the response of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 3, 2021, Mr. Mroz requested. “… dates of birth of each student enrolled in 2nd grade in Massachusetts public schools as of October 1, 2019 … together with their district name, school name, gender, and race/ethnicity.” Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR21/2533 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 5, 2021). The Department had provided a response on August 26, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Mroz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR21/2563, 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 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 Helene Bettencourt SPR21/2563 Page 2 October 18, 2021 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. The Department August 26th Response On August 26, 2021, the Department explained, “the Department must deny [Mr. Mroz’s] request for data that includes students Date of Birth and demographic information. Providing the data described in [Mr. Mroz’s] request raises an extremely high likelihood of an identification of a specific student and therefore is exempt under the statutory and privacy exemptions to the public record law. G.L.c .4, sec. 7(26)(a,c).” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a Helene Bettencourt SPR21/2563 Page 3 October 18, 2021 specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Property Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case by case basis. This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) ---------------------------- (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper ----------------- Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. See also Reinstein ------------ v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The Department’s August 26th response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The Department did not identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. Further, the Department merely cites Exemptions (a) and (c) without sufficient explanation of the applicability of the exemptions to the responsive Helene Bettencourt SPR21/2563 Page 4 October 18, 2021 records. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Mroz with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us . Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Gerry Mroz