Laura H. Ortiz v. University of Massachusetts - Boston (SPR 20241956)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 17, 2024 SPR24/1956 Matthew Fenlon Office of Communications University of Massachusetts – Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 Dear Mr. Fenlon: I have received the petition of Laura Ortiz appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts, Boston (University) 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. Ortiz requested, “[a]ny PRRs that produced any responsive emails and attachments related to the above webinar only.” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/1922 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 9, 2024). In my July 9th Determination, I closed the appeal when I learned the University provided a response to Ms. Ortiz on July 5, 2024. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Ms. Ortiz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/1956, 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

Matthew Fenlon SPR24/1956 Page 2 July 17, 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. The University’s July 5th Response In its July 5, 2024 response, the University states, “UMass Boston provided all responsive documents to Ms. Ortiz and does not have any further documents in its possession. UMass Boston awaits guidance and clarification from the Supervisor of Public Records as to whether the attendee list is a public record in its entirety. Since Ms. Ortiz’s request, the Supervisor of Public Records allowed that a redacted attendee list could be shared with a different requestor.” Current Appeal In her appeal to this office, Ms. Ortiz states, “[w]e Appeal of their substantive non response to spr24/1922 and failure to produce records that exist… umass boston rao on 7/5/24 instead provided a response to spr24/1817 (a different spr appeal and prr of different records) and provided the spr24/1817 redacted “webinar attendee list” record which was entirely non responsive at all to spr24/1922…” Possession, Custody, or Control The University is 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). Based on the University’s response, in conjunction with Mr. Ortiz’s appeal, it is unclear whether the University possesses records responsive to Ms. Ortiz’s June 12th request. If the University does possess responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). The University must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide Ms. Ortiz 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.

Matthew Fenlon SPR24/1956 Page 3 July 17, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Ortiz