Rich Saltzberg v. Martha's Vineyard Public Schools (SPR 20221501)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 14, 2022 SPR22/1501 Matthew D’Andrea, LP.D. Superintendent of Schools Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools 4 Pine Street Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 Dear Dr. D’Andrea: I have received the petition of Rich Saltzberg, of the Martha’s Vineyard Times, appealing the response of the Martha’s Vineyard Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 8, 2022, Mr. Saltzberg requested “any and all May 15, 2022 to June 7, 2022 emails between [a named individual] and any school official, employee, or contractor.” Following further correspondence with the School, on June 24, 2022, Mr. Saltzberg narrowed his request to “just the metadata, including but not limited to, the senders’ and recipients’ addresses, as well as the times and dates on the emails.” The School responded on June 28, 2022. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Saltzberg 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 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

Matthew D’Andrea, LP.D. SPR22/1501 Page 2 July 14, 2022 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Saltzberg first contends that after he narrowed the scope of his request the School “responded by ostensibly waiving the fee. However the language of the MVPS email is such that, at best, they’re asserting their collective finger remains on the fee trigger.” Second, he contends that “a time extension of “up to 25 business days” is an over the top request. Normal response parameters shouldn’t be discarded.” Mr. Saltzberg reiterated these concerns in an email to this office on July 11, 2022. The School’s June 28th Response In its June 28, 2022 response, the School states that “in this instance, the District has determined that it will not require payment of the fee at this time prior to the production of these particular records in the format [Mr. Saltzberg is] currently requesting.” The School confirmed in an email to this office and Mr. Saltzberg on July 8, 2022 that it “has not required the requestor to pay” the previously estimated costs. In its June 28th response, the School also states that it “may require additional time pursuant to M.G.L. c.66, §10(b)(vi), up to 25 business days from its receipt of [Mr. Saltzberg’s] modified request on June 24, to produce all of the redacted records.” Mr. Saltzberg is advised that, under the Public Records Law, if a municipality does not intend to furnish a copy of a public record within 10 business days following receipt of the request, the municipality shall “identify a reasonable timeframe in which the . . . municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that . . . for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records.” G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where the School has confirmed that it will not charge a fee for the modified request, and has indicated that it intends to provide a response within the allowed statutory timeframe, I find that the basis of Mr. Saltzberg’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Saltzberg is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide a response to Mr. Saltzberg’s request in compliance with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. If issues remain once Mr. Saltzberg receives the response, he may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Matthew D’Andrea, LP.D. SPR22/1501 Page 3 July 14, 2022 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rich Saltzberg Peter Sumners, Esq. Nancy Campany, Esq.