Michael W. Donahue v. Georgetown, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20230227)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 21, 2023 SPR23/0227 Carol Jacobs Superintendent Georgetown Public Schools 51 North Street Georgetown, MA 01833 Dear Superintendent Jacobs: I have received the petition of Michael W. Donahue appealing the response of the Georgetown Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 5, 2022, Mr. Donahue requested, “... the evidence that [ESSER fund allocations] was publicly posted (date/time/public link) regarding ESSER Funds contracts involving ... 7 Coaching.” On February 2, 2023, the School responded. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Donahue petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/0227, 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. Attorney 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

Carol Jacobs SPR23/0227 Page 2 February 21, 2023 The School’s February 2nd Response In its February 2, 2023 response, the School provided the requested contract and explained as follows: Item 1[:] You are citing that the training should be on keeping classrooms safe. That is one of the possible uses of funds but we did that training but did not require these funds to do this training. The document I am sending you also includes the list of priorities for which funds can be used which is why I have sent you this document as proof that we are using funds in accordance with the state’s guidelines and based on our judgment of how these funds can be used to help us reach our district goals. I realize that you do not agree with our decision to use the Esser funds for this contract but the state approved the use of funds because it met one of the criterion on which funds can be spent. Item 2[:] Thank you for clarifying that the list you provided reflects what you as a public citizen, would like to see the district post on the website but that this list is not contained in the law itself. We have all required documents on the website and we are continuing to work on our website with the goal of expanding the information we have available however, it may not include everything you would personally like to see. Current appeal In his appeal Mr. Donahue asserts, “[the] District did not address my fundamental records request on two outstanding items. These answers appear to be purposely written in a way to not comply with my request as the district most likely does not have the documentation on hand that I am requesting. I am asking that the district either provide me with the documentation / evidence that I am requesting or simply state that ‘it does not exist’.” Upon review, the School provided a response detailing the ESSER funds in response to Ms. Donahue’s appeal. As such, I find that the basis of Mr. Donahue’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Donahue is reminded 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(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Mr. Donahue may wish to clarify his specific objections to the School’s response.

Carol Jacobs SPR23/0227 Page 3 February 21, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael W. Donahue