Rachel Fiore v. Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (SPR 20251276)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 19, 2025 SPR25/1276 Kathleen Wang Principal Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School 317 Russell Street Hadley, MA 01035 Dear Principal Wang: I have received the petition of Rachel Fiore appealing the response of the Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 25, 2024, Ms. Fiore requested: [1] [A] copy of the parent survey from last year … [and] any other parent surveys and [2] all SEPAC surveys (including comments) that have been completed since the last expansion request. Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR24/3199 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 11, 2024), SPR25/0031 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025), SPR25/0596 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 13, 2025), and SPR25/0833 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 3, 2025 and April 29, 2025). In my April 29th determination, I found that the School had met its burden to redact only certain portions of the records responsive to Item 1 of the request, under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The School responded on April 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Fiore petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1276, 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 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

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1276 Page 2 May 19, 2025 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. 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 School’s April 30th Response In its April 30, 2025 response, the School provided Ms. Fiore with records responsive to Item 2 of her request, redacted pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her May 7, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Fiore objected to the School’s previously assessed fee as improper. Ms. Fiore characterized the School’s redaction of responsive records as excessive, and sought an in camera review to determine their appropriateness. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate This office has previously addressed the reasonableness of the School’s assessed fee. See SPR25/0031 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 16, 2025) and SPR25/0833 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 3, 2025 and April 29, 2025). In my January 16th determination, I found that the School had met its burden to assess a fee of $125.00. In my April 3rd and April 29th determinations, I respectfully declined to reverse my findings. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1276 Page 3 May 19, 2025 necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 54 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. In its prior January 9, 2025 response, the School cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to justify the redaction of protected student information. “Education records” under FERPA are defined as: those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(i-ii). FERPA defines “personally identifiable information” as including, but not limited to: The student’s name; (b) The name of the student’s parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student’s family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; (t) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. 603 C.M.R. 23.02 defines “student record” as follows:

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1276 Page 4 May 19, 2025 Student Record shall consist of the Transcript and the Temporary Record, including all information--recording and computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche, or any other materials--regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student’s name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the Commonwealth. The term as used in 603 CMR 23.00 shall mean all such information and materials regardless of where they are located, except for the information and materials specifically exempted by 603 CMR 23.04. 603 C.M.R. 23.02 (emphasis in original). Additionally, 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4) provides in pertinent part: Access of Third Parties. Except for the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(4)(a) through 23.07(4)(h), no third party shall have access to information in or from a student record without the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student or the parent. 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4) (emphasis in original). In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemption (a) claims made by the School to redact the responsive records, the School must provide this office with un- redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the School’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1276 Page 5 May 19, 2025 impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Please be aware, any cover letter submitted to accompany the relevant records may be subject to disclosure. Order Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rachel Fiore Kimberly Roche, Esq.