Laura Crimaldi v. Sharon, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20243046)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 25, 2024 SPR24/3046 Dr. Joel Jocelyn Records Access Officer Sharon Public Schools 75 Mountain Street Sharon, MA 02067 Dear Dr. Jocelyn: I have received the petition of Laura Crimaldi, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Sharon Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 4, 2024, Ms. Crimaldi requested: [1] Employment offer and/or agreement for [an identified individual], who worked at East Elementary School; [2] Payroll records for [an identified individual]; [3] Any/all resumes for [an identified individual]; [4] Any/all communications, including emails and text messages, between Sharon Public Schools and Sharon Police Department concerning a well being check for [an identified individual] on Feb. 4, 2021; [5] Any/all communications to members of the Sharon Public Schools and East Elementary School community concerning the death of [an identified individual]. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR23/2795 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 23, 2024). In my October 23rd determination, it was my understanding that the School intended on providing a further response to Ms. Crimaldi. The School responded on October 24, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Crimaldi petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3046, 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 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

Dr. Joel Jocelyn SPR24/3046 Page 2 November 25, 2024 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 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 24th response In the School’s October 24, 2024 response, the School stated that, “[t]he District possesses documents responsive to your request.” The School cited Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the requested records in their entirety. The School also stated that, “[t[he records in question are the subject of dispute in active litigation ...” Exemption (f) permits the withholding of: investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(f). A custodian of records generally must demonstrate a prejudice to investigative efforts in order to withhold requested records. Information relating to an ongoing investigation may be withheld if disclosure could alert suspects to the activities of investigative officials. Confidential investigative techniques may also be withheld indefinitely if disclosure is deemed to be prejudicial to future law enforcement activities. Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 62 (1976). Redactions may be appropriate where they serve to preserve the anonymity of voluntary witnesses. Antell v. Att’y Gen., 52 Mass. App. Ct. 244, 248 (2001); Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 290 n.18 (1979). Exemption (f) invites a “case-by- case consideration” of whether disclosure “would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” See Reinstein, 378 Mass. at 289-90.

Dr. Joel Jocelyn SPR24/3046 Page 3 November 25, 2024 In its response, the School stated the following: . . . the requested records are responsive to a law enforcement investigation and have been subpoenaed as part of such investigation/subsequent civil and criminal litigation, and as such the District’s records are evidence in those matters. Here, it is understood that law enforcement has been actively investigating this matter and the documents within the District’s possession are evidence in the matter, of which the release of said documents prior to any adjudication would prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass 59, 62 (1976). Active litigation–The records in question are the subject of dispute in active litigation (Docket No. 2282CV01197; Docket No. 24-CR-10259-DJC). As discussed above, the requested documents are responsive to subpoenas issued to the District as part of the active litigation. . . . 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. Based on the School’s response, where “. . . the requested documents are responsive to subpoenas issued to the [School] as part of the active litigation[,]” I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b)(1); United States of America v. Matthew Farwell, District Court of Massachusetts, Case No. 24-cr-10259-DJC. I further decline to opine on the applicability of Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law 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)(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Crimaldi