Colman Herman v. University of Massachusetts - Lowell (SPR 20251204)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 15, 2025 SPR25/1204 David Joyner Senior Director, Communications & Digital Media University of Massachusetts Lowell 600 Suffolk Street, Suite 415 Lowell, MA 01854 Dear Mr. Joyner: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts Lowell (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 2, 2025, Mr. Herman requested “a list of donors who gave $50,000 or more to the University of Massachusetts Lowell during the period January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024.” The University responded on April 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the University’s response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/1204, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the University provided a further response to this office and Mr. Herman on May 14, 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

David Joyner SPR25/1204 Page 2 May 15, 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 24th and May 14th Responses In its April 24, 2025 response, the University provides a responsive record, and states the following: Attached to this email please find a list of donations made to UMass Lowell in excess of $50,000 during Calendar Year 2024. Note this list reflects only donations made directly to the university, and not donations made to the University of Massachusetts foundation. In its May 14, 2025 response, the University cites Exemption (u) of the Public Records Law for redacting the responsive record. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(u). In his appeal petition, Mr. Herman argues that the University “produced a responsive record, but one entry was redacted, i.e., it stated, “Anonymous Foundation in Boston.” He goes on to argue that “anonymous donations to government entities are not allowed, and the University of Massachusetts Lowell is certainly a government entity.” Exemption (u) Exemption (u) applies to: trade secrets or other proprietary information of the University of Massachusetts, including trade secrets or proprietary information provided to the University by research sponsors or private concerns. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(u). In its May 14th response, under Exemption (u), the University argues the following: Upon Mr. Herman’s request, the university identified and provided the relevant record, i.e. a listing of 36 donations of $50,000 or more made in 2024. In a single instance, a donor’s anonymity was preserved, in deference to the donor’s request at the time of the donation. Withholding this information is in the university’s interest, and the proprietary interest of donor, and we feel therefore exempted from release by statutory exemption G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(u), which applies to “trade secrets or other proprietary information of the University of Massachusetts, including trade

David Joyner SPR25/1204 Page 3 May 15, 2025 secrets or proprietary information provided to the University by research sponsors or private concerns.” Based on the University’s response, it is unclear how the redacted information can be withheld under Exemption (u). Particularly, it is not certain how a donor’s name is proprietary information pursuant to Exemption (u). The University must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide Mr. Herman 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. Herman may appeal the substantive nature of the University’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman