Laura H. Ortiz v. Lynn, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20221223)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 8, 2022 SPR22/1223 Charles Gallo Records Access Officer 100 Bennett Street Lynn, MA 01905 Dear Mr. Gallo: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the Lynn Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 22, 2022, Ms. Ortiz requested the following: A. . . . Open Meeting Law Request for Meeting Minutes to Public Hearing on the School Lunch Program held 2/10/22 B. Public Records Request for a copy of the “Public Hearing on the school lunch” meeting packet/other*, distributed to all SC persons including the City of Lynn Mayor SC Chairperson . . . and Superintendent . . . regarding the Public Hearing on the School Lunch Program for 2/10/22 School Committee held Public Hearing on School Lunches C. Public Records Request for regular School Committee meeting packet/other*, distributed to all SC persons including the City of Lynn Mayor SC Chairperson . . . and Superintendent . . . regarding that School Committee meeting for 2/10/22. The School responded on February 24, 2022, providing various records. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Ortiz 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 municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). 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

Charles Gallo SPR22/1223 Page 2 June 8, 2022 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. 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. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Ortiz contends that the School “did NOT comply with any response nor production of records for Request B and C and only partially for Request A as required under G. L. c. 66, § 10(e); (b) etc.” She furthers argues that “clearly there would and should be public records under Open Meeting Law and also Public Records laws showing that a Vote was held.” Ms. Ortiz goes on to argue that “given the City of Lynn’s actual Charter that also further a vote was required because the Lynn Parents Food Mission Group had appropriately gathered enough signatures to warrant one well over 1K . . . and there should be records that exist that that [she] requested that within them all will show that a vote occurred.” I understand Ms. Ortiz also discussed these concerns with a staff attorney of the Public Records Division on May 25, 2022. The Department’s Response In its February 24, 2022 response, the School provides various records responsive to parts B and C of the request, and states that “preparation of the meeting minutes for the February 10th School Committee meeting is not yet complete.” In a letter to Ms. Ortiz and this office on May 25, 2022, the School provides a copy of the completed minutes and a link to a public website where the minutes are available. The School further confirmed that it has provided all records within its possession, custody or control that are responsive to the request. Records in Existence Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). However, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977).

Charles Gallo SPR22/1223 Page 3 June 8, 2022 Where the School has confirmed that it provided all responsive records in its possession, custody, or control, I find that the School has met its burden in responding to this public records request. Open Meeting Law Ms. Ortiz raises several issues in her appeal potentially related to the Open Meeting Law, including whether votes were properly taken and recorded at a meeting, and whether documents were properly included in the minutes. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(c)–(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 these issues. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Ortiz 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: Laura Ortiz