Leiha Maldonado v. Mohawk Trail Regional School District (SPR 20221359)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 23, 2022 SPR22/1359 Karen Totman Mohawk Trail Regional School District 24 Ashfield Road Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Dear Ms. Totman: I have received the petition of Leiha Maldonado appealing the response of the Mohawk Trail Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 16, 2022, Ms. Maldonado requested various communications between the school committee, parents, and community members, and made multiple modifications to her request through May 18, 2022. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/1174 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 2, 2022). In my June 2nd determination, I ordered the District to clarify whether the redactions described in its fee estimate are required by law. Subsequently, the District responded on June 10, 2022. Objecting to the fees, Ms. Maldonado further 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). 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 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

Karen Totman SPR22/1359 Page 2 June 23, 2022 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. Maldonado contends that “the District cited G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) for why student names and the personal contact information of an employee of the Department of Children and Families were redacted. It remains unclear which exemption(s) apply to the redacted portions of the responsive records.” She further contends that “whereas the District has not received approval through a petition to charge for redaction and has not established that the redactions are required by law, the District is not permitted to charge fees for time spent redacting the records.” In an email to this office and the District on June 16, 2022, Ms. Maldonado also raises additional concerns about the amount of time estimated by the District for searching and compiling the records. The District’s June 10th Response In its June 10, 2022 response, the District states that “the redactions . . . made to the documents requested include student names and the personal contact information of a Department of Children and Families employee. And the legal basis is M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, clause Twenty-sixth.” As noted in the June 2nd determination, the District previously explained the tasks involved and the time required for each task. However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, a fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The District is advised that that information that is “required by law” to be segregated or redacted is found in statutes that explicitly indicate that certain records or information are not public records. Some common examples are the student record statute (G. L. c. 71, § 34D), the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Act (G. L. c. 6, § 167), and laws regarding the confidentiality of domestic violence records (G. L. c. 41, § 97D; G. L. c. 41, § 98F; G. L. c. 209A, § 8).These statutes operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Segregation or redaction under the attorney-client privilege is also interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly, the District must provide further explanation as to whether the redactions described in the fee estimate are required by law.

Karen Totman SPR22/1359 Page 3 June 23, 2022 Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Maldonado with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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: Leiha Maldonado