Kent DeMott v. Leominster, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20243113)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 3, 2024 SPR24/3113 Laura VanDorn Administrator of Special Education & Related Services Leominster Public Schools 24 Church Street Leominster, MA 01453 Dear Ms. VanDorn: I have received the petition of Kent DeMott appealing the response of the Leominster 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 September 4, 2024, Mr. DeMott requested the following: [A] full, complete and unredacted copy of any and all communications with and between [a named individual], and any and all Leominster Massachusetts school department employees, contractors, bus drivers, agents and similar, which occurred at any point in time and were made in or by any and all manners possible. The School responded on September 18, 2024. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. DeMott petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR24/3113, 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

Laura VanDorn SPR24/3113 Page 2 December 3, 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. 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. DeMott argues, among other things, that “[the School’s] assertion of 851 potentially responsive documents includes documents from the City’s website and facebook page, that are clearly not potentially responsive. We think this number is closer to 25-30 documents.” Additionally, he contends that “[the School]’s assertion that the request does not identify the contractors, bus drivers and agents, is problematic as the request is for the [the School] to identify those individuals who have had contact with [the person named in the request], which is a permitted purpose of a public records request.” The School’s September 18th Response In its September 18, 2024 response, the School provides hyperlinks to websites with some potentially responsive records, indicates that it “has identified approximately 815 documents that may be responsive to” the request, and provides a fee estimate totaling $287.50. The School also argues the following: Your request for records does not reasonably describe the public records sought. ... Here, you fail to identify the names of the individuals employed by the school district including the contractors, bus drivers, and agents included on the communications you seek in your request making it impossible for the District to respond. You request is not specific enough that the District is able to reasonably identify the requested documents given the broad sweeping nature of your request including your failure to identify a period of time for the communications you seek. Moreover, your request did not include information “sufficient to allow a professional employee…who was familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort.” ... Therefore, the District declines to produce the records. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic

Laura VanDorn SPR24/3113 Page 3 December 3, 2024 expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Mr. DeMott and the School to communicate in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. DeMott and the School communicate further as described above, Mr. DeMott may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kent DeMott Kristin Wesolaski, Esq.