Christine McCue Potts v. Medfield, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20231106)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 16, 2023 SPR23/1106 Michael LaFrancesca Director of Finance and Operations Medfield Public Schools 459 Main Street Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Director LaFrancesca: I have received the petition of Christine McCue-Potts appealing the response of the Medfield 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 November 28, 2022, Ms. McCue-Potts requested certain school committee executive session minutes under Open Meeting Law. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR23/0362 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 6, 2023). The School responded on February 28, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. McCue-Potts petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/1106, 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

Michael LaFrancesca SPR23/1106 Page 2 June 16, 2023 The School’s February 28th response In its February 28, 2023 response, the School provided redacted school committee executive session minute records. Redactions were made pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. McCue-Potts asserts, “[n]ot all information in executive session minutes are exempt – even for collective bargaining purposes. In the case of this Medfield public records request, in most instances as it relates to Section B, multiple sets of minutes appear improperly segregated preventing the release of non-exempt information. In numerous examples, the minutes only show such phrases as ‘School Committee discussed’ with the rest of the minutes completely redacted showing no indication that the topic actually discussed was collective bargaining strategy or status. (Most problematic are April 15, 2021, March 11, 2021, Dec. 17, 2020, Jan. 7, 2021, July 16, 2020, July 30, 2020 and Aug. 13, 2020.).” Ms. McCue- Potts further states, “[t]he RAO should be required to prove with specificity that the redacted sections are justified under Public Records Law. The only way to do this is to allow the Supervisor of Records to review in camera the unredacted Section B.” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public's right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities.

Michael LaFrancesca SPR23/1106 Page 3 June 16, 2023 In its response, the School cited G. L. c. 30A, § 22 which provides in pertinent part as follows: if an executive session is held pursuant to clause (2) or (3) of subsections (a) of section 21, then the minutes, preparatory materials and documents and exhibits used at the session may be withheld from disclosure to the public in their entirety, unless and until such time as a litigating, negotiating or bargaining position is no longer jeopardized by such disclosure, at which time they shall be disclosed unless the attorney-client privilege or 1 or more of the exemptions under said clause Twenty-sixth of said section 7 of said chapter 4 apply to withhold these records, or any portion thereof, from disclosure. G. L. c. 30A, § 22. In its response, the School asserts the following; The Attorney General’s office has commented on this point in the Open Meeting Law context. Specifically, the Attorney General’s office stated in relevant part in an Open Meeting Law determination: ‘A public body may continue to withhold minutes of a Purpose 3 executive session, in whole or in part, even after a final collective bargaining agreement has been reached if the public release of those minutes could have a detrimental effect on the public body’s collective bargaining position in future negotiations.’ OML 2022-21. Disclosure of a public body’s collective bargaining position and strategy from recently resolved negotiations would jeopardize and have a substantial detrimental effect on its ability to bargain in future negotiations. ... the redactions made on the executive session meeting minutes with respect to recent negotiations were necessary to protect from disclosure said information which, if released, would have a detrimental effect on the Committee’s bargaining position and strategy in future negotiations. Open Meeting Law The nature of Ms. McCue-Potts’ request and the response that was provided to her raise issues that invoke the Open Meeting Law. An interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office. Consequently, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. It is recommended that the parties contact the Attorney General’s Office if they seek a determination on this issue. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.

Michael LaFrancesca SPR23/1106 Page 4 June 16, 2023 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christine McCue-Potts