Erin McCarthy v. Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (SPR 20252024)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 22, 2025 SPR25/2024 Kathleen Wang Principal Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School 317 Russell Street Hadley, MA 01035 Dear Principal Wang: I have received the petition of Erin McCarthy 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 April 14, 2025, Ms. McCarthy requested the following: [A]ll PVCICS Board and PVCICS Board Trusteeship Committee emails related to this year’s process of adding new members to the board, including, but not limited to: [1] Emails regarding putting out the call for board member applications and the posting of ads[;] [2] [T]he receipt by the Board and Trusteeship Committee of these applications[;] [3] Any correspondence between PVCICS Board members and the applicants this year[;] [4] Any correspondence between the Board and/or Trusteeship Committee and [an identified] Executive Director . . . , as he collected the applications[;] [5] Any correspondence related this overall process in 2025, including after the Trusteeship Committee’s meetings in April and the May 1 Board meeting[.] Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1624 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 23, 2025). In my June 23rd determination, I found that the School had not met its burden to redact responsive email communications pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and ordered the School to clarify whether it possessed additional responsive records. 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 SPR25/2024 Page 2 July 22, 2025 The School responded on July 7, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. McCarthy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2024, 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 July 7th Response In its July 7, 2025 response, the School informed Ms. McCarthy that the redacted email communications in dispute were all between an attorney and a client, for the purposes of requesting or providing legal advice. The School further stated that the privilege had not been waived with respect to any of the communications. Current Appeal In her July 14, 2025 appeal, Ms. McCarthy contended that the School had failed to meet its burden of specificity and that its redactions were overbroad. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records

Kathleen Wang SPR25/2024 Page 3 July 22, 2025 custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege the Supervisor of Records “shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). In this case, although the body of the responsive email communications was redacted, the School has left intact the email header information, which included the names of the author and recipient(s), the date and subject of each email. Based on the email header information and the additional details provided in the School’s July 7th response, I find that the School has met its burden to redact these responsive records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. McCarthy 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: Erin McCarthy Kimberly Roche, Esq.