Joseph Smith v. Mohawk Trail Regional School District (SPR 20250223)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2025 SPR25/0223 Shana Garcia Executive Secretary to the Superintendent Mohawk Trail Regional School District 24 Ashfield Road Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Dear Ms. Garcia: I have received the petition of Joseph Smith appealing the response of the Mohawk Trail Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 14, 2025, Mr. Smith sought the following: [1.] any public records held by the district or school that contain communications (or records of communications) to/from police detective . . . or make mention of police detective . . . in any way from 12/01/24 to the date of this request. [2.] any public records that contain any communication related to the possible event that has since caused what the superintendent has admitted is an internal investigation, or related more broadly to how one might or should proceed in such an investigation involving police detective . . ., again I seek such records from 12/01/24 to the date of this request. [3.] any public records related to communication to MA State Police, the Shelburne Falls Police department, any other law enforcement, as well as DESE related to [a named individual] and/or whatever matter the school says they are investigating in relation to him, again from 12/01/24 to the date of this request. The District responded on January 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0223, 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

Shana Garcia SPR25/0223 Page 2 February 3, 2025 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 District’s January 24th Response In its January 24, 2025 response, the District cited Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold records. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, on January 31, 2025, the District stated, “[the Superintendent] states that this situation is an ongoing investigation with the Berkshire County’s District Attorney’s office.” Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Smith states, “[n]othing has been requested that would be privy only to a ‘labor organization representing (a) bargaining unit.’ This request is in relation to an internal investigation the district admits they are conducting which stems from an accusation of inappropriate behavior with a student that lead to a teacher being released. Since there is an internal investigation, the requested records would be readily available in use for that investigation. I am a parent of another student from the same class, my daughter is a minor, others in the class are minors. As of yet the investigation has not been revealed to the broader school community or parents, and only revealed to me as I directly inquired.” Identity or Status of Requestor Please note that the Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976) (“the statute . . . extends the right to examine public records to ‘any

Shana Garcia SPR25/0223 Page 3 February 3, 2025 person’ whether intimately involved with the subject matter of the records he seeks or merely motivated by idle curiosity”). Accordingly, in this case, Mr. Smith’s status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Massachusetts Student Records Regulations In its response, the City cites 603 C.M.R. 23.00 et seq. Please note that 603 C.M.R. 23.02 defines “student record” as follows: Student Record shall consist of the Transcript and the Temporary Record, including all information--recording and computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche, or any other materials--regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student’s name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the Commonwealth. The term as used in 603 CMR 23.00 shall mean all such information and materials regardless of where they are located, except for the information and materials specifically exempted by 603 CMR 23.04.

Shana Garcia SPR25/0223 Page 4 February 3, 2025 603 C.M.R. 23.02 (emphasis in original). Additionally, 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4) provides in pertinent part: Access of Third Parties. Except for the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(4)(a) through 23.07(4)(h), no third party shall have access to information in or from a student record without the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student or the parent. 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4). In its response, the City also cites G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D. G. L. c. 71, § 34D states the following: The board of education shall adopt regulations relative to the maintenance, retention, duplication, storage and periodic destruction of student records by the public elementary and secondary schools of the commonwealth. Such rules and regulations shall provide that a parent or guardian of any pupil shall be allowed to inspect academic, scholastic, or any other records concerning such pupil which are kept or are required to be kept. G. L. c. 71, § 34D. In its response, under the statutes and regulations cited above, the District stated, “M.G.L. c. 71, s. 34D and the associated regulations (603 CMR 23.00) prohibit the disclosure of student records in this circumstance.” Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Analysis under Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Shana Garcia SPR25/0223 Page 5 February 3, 2025 This exemption does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This exemption requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Under Exemption (c), the District states, “[the District is] unable to release the requested information due to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 4, s. 7(26th)(c) as the information related to specifically identified students and would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Burden of specificity in claiming exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(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 . . .”); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The District’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The District did not identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. To deny access to a record under the Public Records Law, a records access officer must identify the record, categories of records, or portions of the record it intends to withhold. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). Here, the District withheld responsive records without identifying any of the records. Therefore, the District must identify what type of records it has in its possession that the District withheld. Further, the District merely cites Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law without any explanation of their applicability to the responsive records. The District must provide additional information regarding how the records are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979)

Shana Garcia SPR25/0223 Page 6 February 3, 2025 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Any non- exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Smith with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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: Joseph Smith