Kathleen LeClair v. Old Rochester Regional School District (SPR 20233134)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 11, 2024 SPR23/3134 Michael S. Nelson Records Access Officer Old Rochester Regional School District 135 Marion Road Mattapoisett, MA 02739 Dear Mr. Nelson: I have received the petition of Kathleen LeClair appealing the response of the Old Rochester Regional School District (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 7, 2023, Ms. LeClair requested the following records: [1.] Spending Plans submitted to the School Committee for approval for ESSER III grant funding awarded to ORRSD in the amount of 258,458 (Jr. High and High School) [2.] [A] copy of the ORR School Committee meeting minutes approving said Spending Plans. The School provided a response on December 21, 2023. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. LeClair petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR23/3134, 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

Michael S. Nelson SPR23/3134 Page 2 January 11, 2024 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. Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. LeClair states that “[i]f the district is unsure what [she] is referring to when [she] request[s] the spending plans the superintended [sic] has submitted to the school committee, [she] refer[s] the district to their own policies wherein it states that the ‘superintendent will submit for School Committee approval spending plans at the same cost level as the district budget.’” The School’s December 21st response In its December 21, 2023 response, the School states the following: The District is unclear what you are seeking in your request for ‘Spending Plans submitted to the School Committee for approval of ESSER III grant funding awarded to ORRSD in the amount of 258, 458 (Jr. High and High School).’ The Public Records Law requires requestors to ‘reasonably describe’ the records sought with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for. See M.G.L. c.66, §10(a)(i); Chawla v. Massachusetts Dep’t of Revenue et al., Suffolk Sup. Ct. No. 1784CV02087, at *2 (Mass. Sup. Ct. Jan. 23, 2019) (Order). If you would like to clarify what you are seeking in this regard, the District can provide you with a follow up response. However, the District has previously provided you with copies of its ESSER III grant applications, and you can review those as potential responses to your request. Reasonable description of records sought Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In Chawla, the Superior court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” (emphasis in original). Id.

Michael S. Nelson SPR23/3134 Page 3 January 11, 2024 The School is further advised that 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). Further, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In this case, Ms. LeClair has provided descriptions of the categories of records she is seeking, including, among other things the specific subject matter and the specific types of records she is seeking. Further, where Ms. LeClair has cited the School policy which references the documents she is seeking, she has provided sufficient particularity required to identify those documents. This office encourages Ms. LeClair and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. LeClair with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kathleen LeClair