Heidi Pitard v. Berlin-Boylston Regional School District (SPR 20241880)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 11, 2024 SPR24/1880 Nicole Bilotta Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Berlin-Boylston Regional School District 215 Main Street Boylston, MA 01505 Dear Ms. Bilotta: I have received the petition of Heidi Pitard appealing the response of the Berlin-Boylston Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 12, 2024, Ms. Pitard requested, “all electronic messages created by you and received during the open meeting held Monday, June 10, 2024… This should include all text messages and emails from the time the meeting was called to order until the meeting was adjourned.” The District responded on June 20, 2024, providing responsive records to the request. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Pitard appealed, and this case, SPR24/1880, 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. 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. 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

Nicole Bilotta SPR24/1880 Page 2 July 11, 2024 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 District’s June 20th Response In its June 20, 2024 response, the District states that “the only electronic messages created by [an identified individual] during the referenced School Committee meeting was a June 10 email… Aside from the enclosed June 10 email, no other emails were created or received by [an identified individual] during the meeting. [An identified individual] had a text message exchange with her spouse during that meeting, but those text messages were personal in nature, did not pertain to District business, and were sent and received on [an identified individual’s] personal cell phone.” Current Appeal In her appeal to this office, Ms. Pitard states, “I do not believe the only email was to the district attorney, nor do I believe there was just one text message to her spouse… [A]s the meeting was getting ready to conclude, she herself said that she had just sent a text to the district attorney with some questions.” Records in Existence 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). Additionally, 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). Further, 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 an email to this office from the District on July 1, 2024, the District confirmed that all responsive records were delivered to Ms. Pitard. Conclusion Where the District confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. Pitard’s request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Pitard is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Nicole Bilotta SPR24/1880 Page 3 July 11, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Heidi Pitard