Nancy Grossman v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20251160)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 8, 2025 SPR25/1160 Christine M. Wilda Associate Chancellor for Compliance University of Massachusetts Amherst 340F Whitmore Building 181 President’s Drive Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Nancy Grossman appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts Amherst (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 9, 2025, Ms. Grossman requested “…the full sum paid to Prince Lobel Tye LLC for the report of the university’s response to the Gaza protest and subsequent arrests of May 2024, including any costs involved in preparation or the report, etc.” The University responded on April 11, 2025. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Ms. Grossman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1160, was opened as a result. Subsequently, I learned that the University provided a further response to Ms. Grossman on May 6, 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 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

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/1160 Page 2 May 8, 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 University’s April 11th and May 6th Responses In its April 11, 2025 response, the University confirmed receipt of Ms. Grossman’s request and stated, “[w]e have a central Office of General Council [sic] in the UMass system President’s Office. They will likely be the ones to respond.” In its May 6, 2025 response, the University responded: [T]his appeal… is not a request for records but rather a request for information. That being noted, we waive that argument and provide a response here to the request for information posed by the requester: eight separate invoices were received between the dates of 8/21/2024 through 2/14/2025, for a total invoiced amount of $445,938.89. Current Appeal Ms. Grossman initially appealed the University’s April 11, 2025 response on the basis of the University’s failure to provide a “timely response.” Following the University’s May 6, 2025 response, Ms. Grossman provided this office with the following supplemental information: [T]he UMass press office released this information to me a bit earlier in the afternoon… would the proper request in the future be for copies of the invoices vs. the “information”? Or, [is the University] saying that typically the university would withhold this information, which… should be publicly available?... [Does] UMass [have] a right to withhold this kind of information, or was I simply phrasing my request incorrectly?... [T]axpayers of the commonwealth have a right to know how our public dollars are being spent… I believe in more rather than less transparency. In any case, my understanding is that a response detailing why the information was being withheld was due to me within 10 business days, and all I received from the university was radio silence until this afternoon. No Duty to Answer Questions Please be advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Additionally, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/1160 Page 3 May 8, 2025 superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). In this case, however, it appears the University has provided Ms. Grossman with the information she sought in her request. Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If unresolved issues remain, Ms. Grossman may appeal the substantive nature of the University’s May 6th response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nancy Grossman