MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Paula Rigano-Murray v. Northampton, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20242947)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 10-29-2024

ClosedAppealPetitioner Won

SPR 20242947 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Paula Rigano-Murray concerning records held by Northampton, City of - Public Schools, opened 10-29-2024. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.

Case Details

Case Number
20242947
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Paula Rigano-Murray
Custodian
Northampton, City of - Public Schools
Date Opened
10-29-2024
Date Closed
11-12-2024
Response Provided Date
12-03-2024
Processing Fees Charged
0.00
Petitions Regarding Fees
No
Time to Comply
14 Business Days
Went to Court
No

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 12, 2024 SPR24/2947 Michele L. Jarvis Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Northampton Public Schools 212 Main Street, 2nd Floor Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Ms. Jarvis: I have received the petition of Paula Rigano-Murray appealing the response of the Northampton 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 July 31, 2024, Ms. Rigano-Murray requested the following records “from June 15 - June 30, 2024”: [A]ll emails and official correspondence regarding the subject of the vote of no confidence in [an identified individual] by the Northampton Association of School Employees including discussions around the school committee’s response, draft responses to the vote, and public records requests or requests for information that were made and/or comments from all news reporters including [an identified individual] of the Daily Hampshire Gazette and [an identified individual] of MassLive with . . . [13 identified individuals]. . . .” On August 13, 2024, Ms. Rigano-Murray modified her request as follows: [A]ll correspondence between [12 identified individuals] regarding the draft responses to NASE’s vote of no confidence as well as all of the drafts that were shared. In addition, please include any correspondence between the above named people and [an identified individual] from the Daily Hampshire Gazette. The time frame I am looking for is June 13th - June 30th. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR24/2469 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 11, 2024) and SPR24/2575 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 25, 2024). In my September 25th determination, I closed the appeal after 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

Michele L. Jarvis SPR24/2947 Page 2 November 12, 2024 the School indicated that it would provide a further response to Ms. Rigano-Murray. On October 2, 2024, the School provided a response. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Rigano- Murray petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/2947, 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. 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 2nd response In its October 2, 2024 response, the School provided seven pages of responsive records in PDF form and stated, “emails to and from [an identified individual from the Daily Hampshire Gazette] [are] attached.” The School further advised, “[t]he working draft document for the Superintendent’s no confidence vote was done in an Executive Session and is not accessible by NPS’ IT department. However, the final draft was released to the public and is attached.” Current appeal In her appeal, Ms. Rigano-Murray contends the following: I would like to see this public records request by the Daily Hampshire Gazette as I have requested multiple times via appeals and it has yet to be provided to me nor I have received any acknowledgement of its existence or lack thereof. Additionally, I have only received a copy of the final draft of the response to the vote of no confidence in the Superintendent and not the copies of the drafts by [four identified individuals] . . . . It is my understanding that the drafts of the statement were developed outside of executive session.

Michele L. Jarvis SPR24/2947 Page 3 November 12, 2024 Based on Ms. Rigano-Murray’s appeal, it is unclear if the School possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, the School must clarify whether it possesses records regarding “[the] public records request by the Daily Hampshire Gazette[.]” 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). Open Meeting Law The School’s October 2nd response and Ms. Rigano-Murray’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 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 draft document related to an executive session. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Rigano-Murray with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Paula Rigano-Murray