David Nadeau v. North Middlesex Regional School District (SPR 20250949)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 22, 2025 SPR25/0949 Robin Eibye Records Access Officer North Middlesex Regional School District 66 Brookline Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Ms. Eibye: I have received the petition of David Nadeau appealing the response of the North Middlesex 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 November 20, 2024, Mr. Nadeau requested “…a copy of the executive session minutes on 6/13/2024 and 7/25/24.” The District responded on December 6, 2024, February 11, 2025, February 27, 2025, and February 28, 2025, Unsatisfied with the District’s responses, Mr. Nadeau petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0949, 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 must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. 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

Robin Eibye SPR25/0949 Page 2 April 22, 2025 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 Responses In its December 6, 2024 response, the District stated: … [T]he Committee has not yet reviewed the requested executive session minutes to determine whether they may be released. Therefore, they are exempt in their entirety from the definition of public records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a) (‘Exemption (a)’)… Executive session minutes are specifically exempted from disclosure under the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A, § 22(f)… The Committee plans to review the requested minutes at its next regularly scheduled meeting to determine whether they may be released. If the Committee determines that the minutes or any portion thereof are suitable for release at this time, copies will be provided to you. On February 11, 2025, the District responded further, “[t]he Executive Session minutes from June 13, 2024, and July 25, 2024, will be reviewed during the February 26th meeting. At that time, the committee will vote on whether to keep them confidential, release them in full, or release them with redactions.” Then, in response to update inquiries from Mr. Nadeau, the District stated on February 27, 2025 and February 28, 2025, “[t]he School Committee had planned to review the outstanding Executive Session minutes during [the most recent] meeting; however, due to time constraints, we were unable to do so. The minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Nadeau states, “…I have not received the requested records, my request continues to be delayed... The School district has met a few times since my original request.” Open Meeting Law The District’s responses, along with Mr. Nadeau’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 executive session minutes.

Robin Eibye SPR25/0949 Page 3 April 22, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: David Nadeau