John Hilliard v. Everett, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20242437)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 11, 2024 SPR24/2437 David O’Connor Records Access Officer Everett Public Schools 121 Vine Street Everett, MA 02149 Dear Mr. O’Connor: I have received the petition of John Hilliard, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Everett 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 August 12, 2024, Mr. Hilliard requested: [1] Any draft or final report related to complaints against [an identified individual[;] [2] Any contract or agreement with Compliance Plus to investigate complaints against [an identified individual[.] The School responded on August 26, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Hilliard petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2437, 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(d)(iv) (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…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see 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

David O’Connor SPR24/2437 Page 2 September 11, 2024 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). 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 August 26th response In its August 26, 2024 response, the School provided the signed agreement with Compliance Plus and cited Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law and attorney- client privilege to withhold other requested records. Further, in its response, the School advised that there is a pending employment discrimination matter. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Hilliard states, “[t]he Globe reported in October that Everett received allegations against [an identified individual] and placed her on leave. According to the contract released by Everett, Compliance Plus was hired to investigate the allegations against the [identified individual] in November. In June, WGBH News reported that the claims against [the individual] alleged she bullied and intimidated school employees. Her attorneys told WGBH that the report’s findings showed no evidence to support those claims, but the city refused to publicly release these findings. I seek access to this report.” Pending litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. It is my understanding that there is an ongoing litigation in the United States District Court regarding this matter. See Tahiliani et al v. City of Everett, United States District Court, Case Number 1:24-CV10544. In light of the pending matter, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (a), (c), and (f) of the Public Records Law, as well as attorney-client privilege to the requested records. It should be noted that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

David O’Connor SPR24/2437 Page 3 September 11, 2024 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Hilliard