Erin Anhalt v. Greenfield, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20251703)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 30, 2025 SPR25/1703 Karin Patenaude Superintendent of Schools Greenfield Public Schools 195 Federal Street, Suite 100 Greenfield, MA 01301 Dear Superintendent Patenaude: I have received the petition of Erin Anhalt appealing the response of the Greenfield Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 23, 2025, Ms. Anhalt requested the following records “from March of 2024 until May 23 2025”: . . . all emails regarding dress code changes from the superintendent or any central office staff member or any member of the school committee. In addition I want the term “Native American”, “Indigenous,” or “Indian”, between any member of the school committee, the superintendent, or any other central office staff between each other and/or the school attorney[.] The School provided a response on June 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Anhalt petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1703, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the School provided numerous supplemental responses by email to the requestor and this office from June 16, 2025 through June 18, 2025. In multiple emails to this office and the School dated June 16, 2025 to June 23, 2025, Ms. Anhalt objected to the School’s supplemental responses. 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). 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

Superintendent Karin Patenaude SPR25/1703 Page 2 June 30, 2025 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. The School’s Responses In its June 12, 2025 response, the School provided 1,712 pages of responsive records. The School did not claim an exemption under the Public Records Law to withhold or redact any responsive records. In its June 16, 2025 supplemental response, the School stated, “[i]n your appeal you indicate that the information you received in response to your records request did not meet the parameters of your request. . . . [W]e have provided all requested communications excluding any information that is exempt from disclosure under the attorney/client privilege exemption.” The School additionally asked, “[c]an you please be more specific regarding the parameters of your request that you believe we have not responded to?” In its June 18, 2025 supplemental response, the School further advised, “[p]lease be aware that in complying with your records request, we had our technology department compile all emails that had any of the key words you requested and that fell within the parameters of the school representatives as you requested.” The School additionally reiterated its claims for withholding responsive records under the attorney-client privilege and stated, “[w]e . . . removed any attorney client privileged emails, as those fall under the exemption for records that are not considered public documents for the purposes of public records requests under M.G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a).” In a second supplemental response dated June 18, 2025, the School stated that it does “not have any additional records responsive to [the] request.” Current appeal In her June 13, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Anhalt contends that the School’s response, “did not meet the parameters of [her] request.” She further argues, “no information, including sensitive information related to children I don’t know in other grades and schools, as well as many personal contact details for myself and others were not [sic] redacted.” Following the School’s June 18, 2025 supplemental responses, in an email to this office and the School on the same date, Ms. Anhalt objected to the School’s supplemental responses

Superintendent Karin Patenaude SPR25/1703 Page 3 June 30, 2025 and stated, “[a]gain, the request was FAR larger than the very narrow parameters requested.” She further argues, “[s]ince [the School’s] response to the request far exceeded the narrow parameters of the request and there were no redactions, at all, the $100 far exceeds any reasonable fee. As such my fee should be refunded. . . .” In an email to the School and this office on June 23, 2025, Ms. Anhalt again claims that “the request [the School] fulfilled is FAR larger than the request [she] filed.” She additionally claims that the School “overcharged [her] for this request” and states, “[s]ince there were ZERO redactions . . . and the documents released . . . were more than 1500 over what would have been within the scope of the request, I am asking for a refund.” Please note, upon review of Ms. Anhalt’s appeal petition and subsequent correspondence with this office, as described above, it appears that she does not object to the School’s claims under the attorney-client privilege for withholding the responsive records. Unclear Appeal Please be advised that in compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Upon review, where Ms. Anhalt is not taking issue with the School’s claims for withholding responsive records but seeks for information to be redacted from the responsive records, she has not alleged a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 by the School. Additionally, where Ms. Anhalt indicates that she paid the fees requested by the School for the provision of the responsive records and the School has provided the responsive records, I find that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted. As such, I find that the basis of Ms. Anhalt’s appeal is unclear. Ms. Anhalt is advised that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Ms. Anhalt may wish to clarify her specific objections to the School’s response. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Erin Anhalt