Darrel Ramsey-Musolf v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20251523)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 5, 2025 SPR25/1523 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 Professor Darrel Ramsey-Musolf 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 November 10, 2024, Professor Ramsey-Musolf requested the following records for the period, March 7, 2023 to November 10, 2024: … [A]ll written correspondence, emails (sent and received), text messages (sent and received), and any other forms of electronic communications between [four identified individuals] and their chain of command relating to[:] [1] the participation and/or exclusion of any UMass Faculty in the Pathways Hire process of [an identified individual], [2] my participation and/or exclusion in the Pathways Hire process of [an identified individual] … To my knowledge, the UMass Employees associated with Regional Planning and/or the Pathways Hire of [an identified individual] [includes 15 identified individuals][.] On April 14, 2025, Professor Ramsey-Musolf requested that the University provide communications from two additional identified individuals. The University responded on December 6, 2024, February 14, February 26, and May 19, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Professor Ramsey-Musolf petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1523, was opened as a result. 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 SPR25/1523 Page 2 June 5, 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. 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. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Professor Ramsey-Musolf’s purpose in making the request shall have no bearing on the public status of any responsive records. The University’s Responses In its December 6, 2024 response, the University assessed a fee and outlined the proposed terms of its search for responsive records. In its February 14, 2025 response, the University revised its assessed fee to $215.00. In its February 26, 2025 response, the University acknowledged payment of the assessed fee and provided Professor Ramsey-Musolf with responsive records. In its May 19, 2025 response, following Professor Ramsey-Musolf’s April 14th amendment of his request, the University provided additional responsive records. The University stated that it was withholding one email chain regarding a student’s incomplete coursework under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/1523 Page 3 June 5, 2025 Current Appeal In his May 29, 2025 petition to this office, Professor Ramsey-Musolf contended that the University’s search was inadequate, and that additional responsive records existed which had not been provided to him. Professor Ramsey-Musolf did not object to the withholding of the one email chain under FERPA. In an email communication to this office on June 4, 2025, the University stated that it had provided all records responsive to the agreed-upon search terms, with the exception of the single withheld email chain. No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). The duty to comply with requests for records extends only 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). Conclusion Given that the University has confirmed that it possesses no additional responsive records, and this office has no authority to compel the University to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Professor Ramsey-Musolf is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Darrel Ramsey-Musolf