Bethany Andres-Beck v. Middleton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20232414)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 25, 2023 SPR23/2414 Dr. Scott R. Morrison Superintendent of Schools Middleton Public Schools 28 Middleton Road Boxford, MA 01921 Dear Dr. Morrison: I have received the petition of Beth Andres-Beck appealing the response of the Middleton Public Schools (School) to her request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 25, 2023, Ms. Andres-Beck requested emails sent to the School Board from June 5, 2023 to June 22, 2023, regarding a summer reading list. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/1676 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 4, 2023). In my August 4th determination, I found that the School did not meet its burden to redact responsive records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. On August 18, 2023, the School provided a response explaining the redactions made pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Andres-Beck petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/2414, 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. 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

Dr. Scott R. Morrison SPR23/2411 Page 2 October 25, 2023 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. 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 August 18th response In its August 18, 2023 response, the School stated the following: As a result, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. There are three factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280,292 (2017). In light of these three (3) factors, the names, email addresses, phone numbers and other identifying information regarding the authors of the emails have been redacted along with references to their family members, some of whom are current or former students. The redactions were made for the following reasons. First, to prevent the disclosure of information that would result in personal embarrassment to the individuals (or their family members - some of whom are students) who sent the emails. Second, the emails contain intimate details of a highly personal nature regarding the personal lives or beliefs of the individuals who sent them. Third, the information contained in the emails does not appear to be information that is available from other sources. . . . Here, the redacted records produced are from private citizens who generally have a greater expectation of privacy than public employees. Some of the individuals who sent the emails have also expressed concern to the School regarding the release of these emails, given alleged hostility and threats made after the School Committee Meeting held on June 22, 2023. The School is attempting to balance these concerns and privacy interests with the public’s interest in obtaining the requested information. Accordingly, the school has only redacted information that might identify the authors (or their family members) of the emails, and left the balance of the content of the emails unredacted.

Dr. Scott R. Morrison SPR23/2411 Page 3 October 25, 2023 In camera inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (c) claim made by the School to redact responsive records, the School must provide this office with un- redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the School’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Beth Andres-Beck Kevin S. Freytag, Esq. Madison Harris-Parks, Esq.