Olufunmilola Shelly v. Framingham, City of - Public Schools Department (SPR 20220999)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records May 9, 2022 SPR22/0999 Amy Kane Records Access Officer Schools Department City of Framingham 150 Concord Street Framingham, MA 01702 Dear Ms. Kane: I have received the petition of Olufunmilola Shelly appealing the response of the City of Framingham (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 15, 2022, Ms. Shelly requested the following: - Any complaints filed against [a named individual] in 2020, 2021, or 2022. - Any emails staff to school department administration, or HR, on complaints about [the individual] in 2020, 2021, or 2022. - Any resignation letters when [the individual] was cited as the reason for leaving in 2020, 2021, or 2022. - Any performance reviews performed on [the individual] in 2020, 2021, or 2022. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/0773 Supervisor of Records Determination (April 13, 2022). In my April 13th determination, I ordered the City to identify the records being withheld and to clarify its claims under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Subsequently, the City responded on April 28, 2022. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Ms. Shelly appealed, and this case 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 agency or 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

Amy Kane SPR22/0999 Page 2 May 9, 2022 municipality 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. Att’y 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. The City’s April 28th Response In its April 28, 2022 response, the City states that “records responsive to [Ms. Shelly’s] request include a grievance report with associated documents (‘grievance report’), totaling approximately 150 pages. The grievance report is the subject of ongoing executive session proceedings before the Framingham School Committee, and therefore are not public records.” Where the City states that it is withholding the responsive records pursuant to ongoing executive session proceedings, the City’s response thus raises issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session materials. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Shelly is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Olufunmilola Shelly