Jonathan Guzman v. Lawrence, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20251229)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 13, 2025 SPR25/1229 Odanis M. Hernandez Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Public School District 237 Essex St Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Ms. Hernandez: I have received the petition of Jonathan Guzman appealing the response of the Lawrence Public 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 March 27, 2025, Mr. Guzman requested: [1] All documents related to the Lawrence Public Schools Strategic Plan, including drafts, finalized versions, and any supplementary materials. [2] A detailed breakdown of the budget associated with employee time allocated to the development and implementation of the Strategic Plan. [3] The budget details and the name of the consultant(s) involved in supporting the Strategic Plan, along with their specific contributions. [4] A copy or summary of the presentation of the Strategic Plan that was presented to the Lawrence Alliance for Education. The District responded on April 14, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Guzman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1229, 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 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

Odanis Hernandez SPR25/1229 Page 2 May 13, 2025 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. Att’y 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 April 14th Response In its April 14, 2025 response, the District cited Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. Current Appeal In his May 2, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Guzman contended that the public interest favors disclosure of the responsive records and requested that the District release all non-exempt portions of the responsive records. Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters ----------------------- used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure).

Odanis Hernandez SPR25/1229 Page 3 May 13, 2025 In its April 14th response, the District stated: At this time, there are no responsive documents available related to the Lawrence Public Schools Strategic Plan, as the plan is still under development and no such documents have been created. Accordingly, we are withholding any preliminary or working materials under Exemption (d) of the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d)), which protects inter-agency or intra-agency communications relating to policy positions in the process of development. No finalized or supplementary materials currently exist. Based on the District’s response, it is unclear what records the District intends to withhold from disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a 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 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3)(c)(4). The District must clarify this matter. Further, it is unclear from the District’s response how any responsive records are “inter- agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters” as required by Exemption (d). See DOI v. Klamath Water Users Prot. Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 4 (2001) (indicating that a requirement for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption 5 to apply is “its source must be a Government agency”); City of Madison v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 641 F.2d 1036, 1040 (1st Cir. 1981) (finding that documents from a private party are not “intra-agency” under FOIA exemption 5); SPR95/336 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (August 14, 1995; August 31, 1995) (finding that Exemption (d) does not protect materials submitted to an agency by third parties and only applies to governmental agencies or consultants). The District must clarify this matter. Based on the District’s response, I find it has not met its burden of specificity to withhold the records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (d). The District is advised that any information contained in these records that is factual in nature may be subject to disclosure, as Exemption (d) does not apply to such information. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Guzman with a response to the 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. Mr. Guzman may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Odanis Hernandez SPR25/1229 Page 4 May 13, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Guzman Eileen Bernal