Jeanna Tinney v. Pittsfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20241081)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 24, 2024 SPR24/1081 Ann Marie Carpenter Director of Human Resources, Diversity, and Inclusion Pittsfield Public Schools 269 First Street Pittsfield, MA 01201 Dear Ms. Carpenter: I have received the petition of Jeanna Tinney appealing the response of the Pittsfield 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 October 20, 2023, Ms. Tinney requested: [1.] Emails, letters, reports, and memos between [two identified individuals] and anybody serving in the district coordinator position within the last year in regard to the 21st Century grant and the status of the budget, within the last year[;] [2.] Emails, letters, reports, and memos between [an identified individual] and any member of the School Committee in regard to the 21st Century grant, within the last year[;] [3.] Emails, letters, reports, and memos between [a second identified individual] and any member of the School Committee in regard to the 21st Century grant, within the last year[;] [4.] Emails, letters, reports, and memos between anybody serving in the district coordinator position and their direct supervisor within the last year in regard to procuring the 21st Century grant. The School provided responses on October 31, 2023, November 1, 2023, November 2, 2023, February 8, 2024, March 2, 2024, March 8, 2024, and March 11, 2024. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Tinney petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1081, was opened as a result. 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

Ann Marie Carpenter SPR24/1081 Page 2 April 24, 2024 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. See 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. 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 October, November, February, and March Responses In its October 31st response, the School provided a fee estimate. In its November 1st response, the School provided further information on its fee estimate. In its November 2nd response, the School stated, in regards to its fee estimate, “…I’ll ask Dr. White to keep a record of time.” In its February 8th response, the School provided a series of records. In its March 2nd response to a question of whether the records were complete, the School stated, “I will forward to the staff member who processed the request.” In its March 11th response, the School provided a table regarding the fee estimate which was paid by Ms. Tinney. The School further responded and stated, “[p]lease reference the documents that you believe to be missing…it looks pretty thorough in my review.” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Tinney stated, “I was told that all attachments ‘should’ be in the records they aren’t and they won’t respond to me or give access to the attachments, Google docs, etcetera.” In her conversations with the School, Ms. Tinney also stated, “[t]he documents not included are: letter(s) from DESE, google documents throughout the records and various email attachments…Second, I’m wondering if I am missing two pages on one of the packets sent. You said you believe it was 3 pages, but I only have one.” Based on Ms. Tinney’s claims, in conjunction with the School’s response, it is unclear if the School possesses any additional records responsive to her request. 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).

Ann Marie Carpenter SPR24/1081 Page 3 April 24, 2024 However, 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). Consequently, the School must clarify whether any additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Tinney with a response to the 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. Ms. Tinney may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jeanne Tinney