Brian Keaney v. Dedham, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20240748)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2024 SPR24/0748 Dr. Ian Kelly Deputy Superintendent Dedham Public Schools 100 Whiting Avenue Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Dr. Kelley: I have received the petition of Brian Keaney appealing the response of the Dedham 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 February 14, 2024, Mr. Keaney requested “copies of all [of the School Committee’s] executive sessions minutes from the following [list of thirteen identified dates] and all since July 15, 2020.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/0644 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 13, 2024). In my March 13th determination, I closed SPR24/0644 in light of the School providing a written response on March 11, 2024. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Keaney further appealed, and this case 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 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. Ian Kelly SPR24/0748 Page 2 March 25, 2024 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Keaney indicates that he would like to appeal concerning four sets of executive session minutes, identified by date as September 4, September 18, October 2, and October 16, 2019. Mr. Keaney contends the following: The School Committee has negotiated two new contracts with the teacher’s union since this time. Additionally, they have released the minutes of other executive sessions that discuss collective bargaining (e.g. July 28, 2021) that are more recent. There should no longer be a need for secrecy this far back. Additionally, [the Deputy Superintendent] states that all of the executive session minutes from the 2021-22 school year have been released and are available on their website. However, the minutes of the School Committee’s agenda on several dates (e.g. November 3, 2021) states that an executive session was held, but no minutes from that executive session have been posted. Finally, [the Deputy Superintendent] states that the minutes from the current school year are “in review process.” The current school year is six months old. Half a year should be enough time to review minutes, and certainly is enough time to produce a list with specificity. The School’s March 11th Response In its March 11, 2024 response, the School provides a list of numerous executive session meeting minutes, indicating which have been released and posted on the School’s website, and indicating which minutes the School intends to withhold. The School also includes a link to a website providing more detailed information on the status of those executive sessions. For the four sets of minutes described in Mr. Keaney’s appeal, the School indicates that the executive session minutes are “not released” and gives as the reason for withholding that “release could pose a detrimental effect on the Committee’s bargaining position in future negotiations or litigation.” Open Meeting Law The School’s response, and Mr. Keaney’s appeal petition, raise issues potentially related to the Open Meeting Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and not this

Dr. Ian Kelly SPR24/0748 Page 3 March 25, 2024 office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brian Keaney