Kim Edmonds v. Belmont, Town of (SPR 20221868)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 25, 2022 SPR22/1868 Artemis Tingos Records Access Officer Belmont Public Schools Office of the Superintendent 644 Pleasant Street Belmont, MA 02478 Dear Mr. Tingos: I have received the petition of Kim and Stephen Edmonds appealing the response of the Belmont Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 20, 2022, Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds requested, [A]ll emails from 2018 through the present sent by or to Belmont Public Schools and/or Town of Belmont employees, contractors, agents, consultants, attorneys or other person acting on their behalf that pertain, relate or refer to [an identified individual] or to [identified individuals]. The School provided a response on July 7, 2022. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/1868, 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(d)(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 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

Artemis Tingos SPR22/1868 Page 2 August 25, 2022 exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based…”); 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). 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 School’s July 7th Response In its July 7, 2022 response, the School asserted that it had provided the responsive emails. In a further response sent on August 22, 2022, the School asserted that, [o]ur technology department did an email search that referenced the three names, and did not originate with or were sent to their email addresses, as requested. This resulted in 779 emails. From those results, we omitted emails which related to general class/team attendance, schedules or testing dates. We have released all documents in our possession from this search. Current appeal In a letter dated August 23, 2022, Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds state that, “[t]he [School’s] claim that it has produced all the relevant records is patently and demonstrably false.” Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds argue that “[t]he [School’s] response fails to state the exact number of records it claims are responsive to our request. It only states the number of records which it purportedly reviewed.” Further, they state that “[t]here are emails that are responsive to the request that were not produced. The [School] refused to respond to any requests to search for the additional responsive records.” In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds argue that, “[t]he School produced only 72 emails despite initially claiming there were 2,692 emails. The emails the [School] chose to produce were transferred to the [School’s] assistant and printed under a header with her name. Most of the emails produced included a chain of emails that was curated by the [School] and that omitted responsive emails.” Further, Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds contend that “[t]he [School] did not separately produce responsive emails (or their chains) if they were included within the aforementioned chains, indicating the [School’s] production was highly edited.” In light of the claims made by Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds, it is unclear if the School possesses additional records that may be responsive to their request. 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). To the extent that additional records exist, I find the School must provide them in a manner consistent

Artemis Tingos SPR22/1868 Page 3 August 25, 2022 with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. and Mrs. Edmonds with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kim and Stephen Edmonds