Rachel Fiore v. Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (SPR 20251783)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 3, 2025 SPR25/1783 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 and In Camera Review This request was the subject of prior appeals and an in camera review. 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 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (April 3, 2025; April 29, 2025). In my April 29th determination, I found that the School had met its burden to justify the redaction of students’ personally identifiable information under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and personal medical information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. However, I found that the School had not met its burden to justify the remainder of its redactions under Exemptions (a) and (c). The School responded on May 13, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Fiore petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1783, was opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the School provided a supplemental response on July 2, 2025. 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 SPR25/1783 Page 2 July 3, 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. The School’s May 13th Response In its May 13, 2025 response, the School provided Ms. Fiore with redacted copies of the records responsive to Item 1 of her request. The School reiterated its earlier position that it was permitted to redact “identifiable student information” under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law and personnel information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. Current Appeal In her June 22, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Fiore asked that the Supervisor review the School’s redactions to confirm compliance with the Public Records Law. 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 necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1783 Page 3 July 3, 2025 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 March 28, 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: Student Record shall consist of the Transcript and the Temporary Record, including all information--recording and computer tapes, microfilm, microfiche,

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1783 Page 4 July 3, 2025 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). Based on the School’s response and the prior in camera review conducted by this office, I find that the School has met its burden to redact references to the personally identifiable information of specific students, pursuant to FERPA as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass App Ct 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386.

Kathleen Wang SPR25/1783 Page 5 July 3, 2025 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. at 798. In its July 2, 2025 response, the School stated: [W]hen information is provided to the school in these surveys relating to specifically identified staff members, the school reviews that information for internal personnel investigations and/or assessments relating to the evaluation and work performance of the identified individual(s). Based on the School’s response and the prior in camera review conducted by this office, and where the redacted information constitutes personnel information which is useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, I find that the School has met its burden to redact the responsive records under Exemption (c). In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c).” Id. at 6. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Fiore 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: Rachel Fiore Kimberly Roche, Esq.