Stephen Voltz v. Beverly, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20251095)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 2, 2025 SPR25/1095 Erin Brown Executive Director of Operations Beverly Public Schools 70 Balch Street Beverly, MA 01915 Dear Ms. Brown: I have received the petition of Stephen Voltz appealing the response of the Beverly Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 9, 2024, Mr. Voltz requested the following records: [1] All communications (including but not limited to emails, text messages, memoranda, letters, reports, and meeting notes) between any City of Beverly employee, official, or representative, and 2) any public relations, communications, media relations, or strategic communications firm, consultant, or contractor regarding: a. The Beverly teachers’ strike b. Any other Massachusetts teachers’ strike, potential strike, or contracted negotiations c. Communications strategy related to Beverly teacher contract negotiations d. Media strategy regarding teacher contract negotiations e. Draft or final press releases, statements, or other public communications about the strike or negotiation f. Social media strategy or content related to the strike or negotiations, or g. Messaging recommendations or advice regarding the strike or negotiations[;] [2] All drafts, revisions, or versions of: a. Press releases b. Public statements c. Social media posts 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

Erin Brown SPR25/1095 Page 2 May 2, 2025 d. Talking points e. Media responses f. Other public communications that were either created by, reviewed by, or shared with any public relations, communications, media relations, or strategic communications firm, consultant, or contractor regarding the strike or negotiations[;] [3] All contracts, invoices, billing or payment records, or other documentation showing: a. The identity of any public relations, communications, media relations, or strategic communications firm, consultant, or contractor retained by or providing services to the City regarding the strike or teacher/para contract negotiations b. Work performed by such firms/individuals related to the strike or negotiations and the cost for that work. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous fee petition from the School. See SPR24/3342 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 16, 2024). In my December 16th determination, I found that the School could assess a fee limited to $32.49 per hour. Additionally, I encouraged the parties to communicate to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. On December 20, 2024, the School sent a fee estimate for the request. On January 24, 2025, the School received Mr. Voltz’s fee payment in full. Mr. Voltz then sent a letter via certified mail to the School on April 15, 2025, inquiring about the status of his request. Subsequently, the School responded on April 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Voltz petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1095, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the School provided a supplemental response on April 30, 2025. 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

Erin Brown SPR25/1095 Page 3 May 2, 2025 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 April 19th and April 30th Responses In its April 19, 2025 response, the School stated: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 15, 2025. Consistent with the state law, the District issued you a response in December 2024 indicating it possesses documents responsive to your request, was assessing a good faith fee estimate and that after payment had been made the district would begin work on your request. We estimated the minimum reasonable timeframe for production to be fifteen (15) business days. Your good faith fee estimate was received on 1/24/25 and we began working on the request once payment was made. As we have navigated this request within the available time and resources of the district, it has taken a substantial period of time to pull together and review the records responsive to your request. We are working to provide you with all responsive documents within our available means and as soon as we feasibly can. In its April 30, 2025 supplemental response, the School stated, “[t]hank you for your patience as we compile the information you requested. We anticipate having everything finalized and ready for you by May 16, 2025.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Voltz states: [The School] provided no timeline, no explanation for [the] lengthy delay or for [the] failure to communicate with me, and no partial production of any records. [It] did not even produce the records relating to the City’s communications with the National Review, for which the City’s own estimate was that producing those records would take less than two and a half hours. Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall:

Erin Brown SPR25/1095 Page 4 May 2, 2025 identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Mr. Voltz’s request was submitted on December 9, 2024 and the School received Mr. Voltz’s fee payment on January 24, 2025, and the School has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the School has not met its burden in responding to the requests in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where the School has provided an estimated date of May 16, 2025 to complete its review and provide the requested records, I find that to the extent possible, the School must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Voltz with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Mr. Voltz may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Stephen Voltz