Emily Pfeiffer v. Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Charter Public School (SPR 20251922)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 10, 2025 SPR25/1922 Marleen Conner Chief Financial Officer Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Charter School 15 Mulligan Drive South Hadley, MA 01075 Dear Ms. Conner: I have received the petition of Emily Pfeiffer appealing the response of the Pioneer Valley Performing Arts 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 May 14, 2025, Ms. Pfeiffer requested: [T]he notes from the executive sessions that the board held on the following dates: [1] January 14, 2025 – “to hear complaints and allegations involving an employee” [2] March 4, 2025 – “to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations win [sic] nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel” [3] March 11, 2025 – “to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel (Head of School . . .)” [5] March 26, 2025 – “to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel (Head of School . . .)” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1528 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 11, 2025). In my June 11th determination, I found that it was unclear whether the School had provided a response. 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

Marleen Conner SPR25/1922 Page 2 July 10, 2025 The School responded on June 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Pfeiffer petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1922, 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. 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 June 12th Response In its June 12, 2025 response, the School informed Ms. Pfeiffer that it had previously responded to her request on June 1, 2025. In its prior June 1, 2025 response, the School stated: The January 14th executive session was under Purpose 1 to hear complaints against an employee. This is allowed to maintain the privacy of the employee being discussed. That privacy interest does not exist when the issue is resolved. Rather, it continues indefinitely as releasing the name of the employee and the circumstances involved at any time would compromised the employee’s privacy interest. For this reason, the Board of Trustees previously voted to retain the minutes as confidential and will not release them. The March 4, 11 and 26 executive sessions all relate to the Board of Trustees ongoing negotiations with the Head of School for a new employment agreement, including the Board’s negotiation strategy. As this negotiation process is not yet complete, the release of the minutes would compromise the Board’s bargaining position. Once the Board completes its negotiations with the Head of School, the Board will evaluate the executive session minutes to determine whether they reflect any long-term strategy that would preclude release, in whole or in part, or

Marleen Conner SPR25/1922 Page 3 July 10, 2025 may otherwise be retained, for example, to protect attorney-client privileged communications. Current Appeal In her July 1, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Pfeiffer contended that the School had not properly justified the withholding of responsive records. Open Meeting Law The nature of Ms. Pfeiffer’s request and the School’s response raises issues related to the Open Meeting Law, rather than the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 30A, § 22(f). Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Office of the Attorney General and not this office, I decline to address this issue in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, § 23. I encourage the parties to contact the Office of the Attorney General for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Emily Pfeiffer