Joseph Smith v. Mohawk Trail Regional School District (SPR 20251612)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 24, 2025 SPR25/1612 Shana Garcia Executive Secretary to the Superintendent Mohawk Trail Regional School District 24 Ashfield Road Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 Dear Ms. Garcia: I have received the petition of Joseph Smith appealing the response of the Mohawk Trail Regional 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 January 14, 2025, Mr. Smith requested the following records: [1] any public records held by the district or school that contain communications (or records of communications) to/from police detective . . . or make mention of police detective . . . in any way from 12/01/24 to the date of this request. [2] any public records that contain any communication related to the possible event that has since caused what the superintendent has admitted is an internal investigation, or related more broadly to how one might or should proceed in such an investigation involving police detective . . ., again I seek such records from 12/01/24 to the date of this request. [3] any public records related to communication to MA State Police, the Shelburne Falls Police department, any other law enforcement, as well as DESE related to [a named individual] and/or whatever matter the school says they are investigating in relation to him, again from 12/01/24 to the date of this request. Previous appeals and In camera review This request was the subject of previous appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/0223 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 3, 2025) and SPR25/0381 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (February 21, 2025 and April 29, 2025). In my April 29th determination, I found that although portions of the records may fall under Exemption (a), the District had not met its burden to show that the entirety of the withheld records are 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

Shana Garcia SPR25/1612 Page 2 June 24, 2025 exempt under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. With regard to withholding records under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, based upon the update to Exemption (c), where the amendment states that this, “subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation,” I found that it was unclear how the requested records could be withheld. In response to the in camera order, the District provided redacted records on May 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Smith petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1612, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the District provided a supplemental response dated June 10, 2025, which Mr. Smith further appealed. 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. See 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. 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 June 9, 2025 appeal, Mr. Smith stated, “I am contending that there are additional responsive records that were not provided by the District. Such as the attached record, which they did not provide to me, but should have been a responsive record to my request. Additionally this record references a report which also would be responsive but was not provided either. Given that two responsive records were withheld, it is reasonable to assume other responsive records may also have been withheld. The district did not send a cover letter.” In his June 10, 2025 appeal, Mr. Smith asserted, “I clearly stated I was seeking records that in ‘any way’ made mention of [an identified individual]. ‘Any way’ would clearly include initials, code words, or anything else that made mention of said person. I also clearly stated that I was seeking ‘any communication related to the possible event that has since caused what the

Shana Garcia SPR25/1612 Page 3 June 24, 2025 superintendent has admitted is an internal investigation’. The record in question which they withheld specifically was related to the event for which there was an internal investigation.” The District’s May 13th and June 10th Responses In its May 13, 2025, the District provided the last 3 PDFs of emails. In its June 10, 2025 response, the District stated, “[a]fter researching this appeal, the email in question was not sent to Mr. Smith. His request asked for all emails containing [an identified individual]....The other party made a public records request for emails between [identified individuals]. The email was included in that request, not Mr. Smith’s, because this email only refers to....Our IT department pulled the specific information as outlined in the request.” Based on Mr. Smith’s claims, in conjunction with the District’s responses, it is unclear if the District possesses any additional records responsive to his request. The duty to comply with requests for records extends 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). However, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Consequently, the District must clarify whether any additional records exist. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Smith 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. Smith may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Smith