Colman Herman v. UMass Chan Medical School (SPR 20251369)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 29, 2025 SPR25/1369 Ryan Menard, J.D. Assistant Vice Chancellor for Management University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School Office of Management 55 Lake Avenue North Worcester, MA 01655 Dear Mr. Menard: I have received the petition of Colman Herman appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass) 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 medical school during the period January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1206 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 13, 2025). In my May 13th determination, I learned that UMass provided Mr. Herman with a supplemental response dated May 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Herman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1369, 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 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. 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

Ryan Menard, J.D. SPR25/1369 Page 2 May 29, 2025 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. Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Herman states, “UMass is not a foundation . . . Government entitles, of which UMass is one, cannot accept anonymous money.” UMass’ May 13th response In its May 13, 2025 response, UMass cited Exemption (u) of the Public Records Law to withhold six anonymous donors to UMass Chan in calendar year 2024. 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 13th response, under Exemption (u), the UMass asserts the following: For this appeal, UMass Chan relies on exemption (u), which exempts from disclosure “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.” ... While most donors to UMass Chan do not request anonymity, University of Massachusetts campuses have long granted anonymity to donors requesting it. Donors may have a number of good faith reasons for requesting anonymity; for example, in accordance with genuinely-held religious beliefs or personal ethics, to avoid unwanted solicitation from other organizations, or to advance specific programs that might attract attention from extremist actors. Exemption (u) does not define “proprietary information”—nor, to our knowledge,

Ryan Menard, J.D. SPR25/1369 Page 3 May 29, 2025 does any other Massachusetts statute—in broadly exempting same when received specifically by the University of Massachusetts. Respectfully, this exemption should be interpreted broadly to apply to non-public information provided to the University of Massachusetts in its authorized activities—particularly where the Legislature chose not to further narrow the exemption and singled out the University of Massachusetts as the only public entity within the Commonwealth able to invoke it. Not only did the Legislature choose not to specifically exclude anonymous donors from the scope of exemption (u), but the Legislature also has separately affirmed the public policy of allowing anonymous donations to state universities. M.G.L. c. 15A, § 37(f) states that “[t]he identity of donors [to foundations established for public university fundraising] who wish to remain anonymous shall be protected and anonymity of such donors shall be maintained in all audit reports,” which reports are otherwise deemed public records. Moreover, requiring UMass Chan to disclose the identities of its anonymous donors would be deeply unfair—and potentially prejudicial—to these donors, who gave charitably to support the public missions of UMass Chan with the reasonable expectation, supported by UMass Chan’s assurances, that their requested anonymity would be protected. For these reasons, UMass Chan respectfully requests that the Supervisor of Public Records deny the Requestor’s appeal. Based on UMass’ response, it is unclear how the responsive records 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).

Ryan Menard, J.D. SPR25/1369 Page 4 May 29, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colman Herman