Jonathan Gerhardson v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20243022)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 20, 2024 SPR24/3022 Christine M. Wilda Associate Chancellor for Compliance University of Massachusetts Amherst 340F Whitmore Building 181 President’s Drive Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts Amherst (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 9, 2024, Mr. Gerhardson requested “the Demonstration Response and Safety Team Standard Operating Procedure as described [at a specified hyperlink].” Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR24/2823 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 24, 2024). In my October 24th determination, I ordered the University to clarify its claims for withholding the responsive records under Exemption (n). Subsequently, the University responded on November 7, 2024. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/3022, 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). 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

Christine M. Wilda SPR24/3022 Page 2 November 20, 2024 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 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 University’s November 7th Response In its November 7, 2024 response, the University cites Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law for withholding one responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” Id. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s

Christine M. Wilda SPR24/3022 Page 3 November 20, 2024 determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” PETA, at 290. In its November 7th response, under Exemption (n), the University argues the following: The requested record sets forth internally developed procedures for engaging with protestors. Dissemination of these procedures could assist activists in subverting these procedures and as a result adversely affect University’s attempts to negotiate, resolve de-escalate or mediate tense situations. This adverse effect could place various members of the campus community in danger. While as a general matter the burden to demonstrate applicability of an exemption rests with the record custodian, Exemption (n) explicitly provides deference to the reasonable judgment of the record custodian. In its response, the University also refers to “University incidents last Spring regarding campus protests or events that occurred on both local and national levels. The ‘sufficient factual heft’ ... is found there.” In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (n) claim made by the University to withhold the responsive record, the University must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the record, I will return the record to the University’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the record. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a

Christine M. Wilda SPR24/3022 Page 4 November 20, 2024 promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of the responsive record for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Gerhardson