Jonathan Guzman v. Lawrence, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20252625)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 17, 2025 SPR25/2625 Odanis M. Hernandez Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Public School District 237 Essex St Lawrence, MA 01840 Dear Ms. Hernandez: I have received the petition of Jonathan Guzman appealing the response of the Lawrence Public 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 March 27, 2025, Mr. Guzman requested: [1] All documents related to the Lawrence Public Schools Strategic Plan, including drafts, finalized versions, and any supplementary materials. [2] A detailed breakdown of the budget associated with employee time allocated to the development and implementation of the Strategic Plan. [3] The budget details and the name of the consultant(s) involved in supporting the Strategic Plan, along with their specific contributions. [4] A copy or summary of the presentation of the Strategic Plan that was presented to the Lawrence Alliance for Education. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1229 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 13, 2025). In my May 13th determination, I found that the District had not met its burden to withhold responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. The District responded on June 9, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Guzman petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2625, was opened as a result. 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

Odanis Hernandez SPR25/2625 Page 2 September 17, 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 District’s June 9th Response In its June 9, 2025 response, the District withheld records responsive to Item 1 of the request in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. The District further stated that it did not possess the responsive records, as the District’s Strategic Plan was under development by an external consultant. Current Appeal In his September 4, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Guzman contended that the District’s response did not comply with the Public Records Law. Agency Relationship Please be advised that 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). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, 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). Additionally, public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the general public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Reinstein ------------ v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). The District is advised that where a public entity contracts with a third party to fulfill its public duties, and the public entity exercises control over that third party, an agency relationship

Odanis Hernandez SPR25/2625 Page 3 September 17, 2025 is created. See Fifty-one Hispanic Residents of Chelsea v. Sch. Comm. of Chelsea, 421 Mass. 598, 607 (1996) (while subject to control of a public entity as a principal for purposes of performing public duties, private university is a public agent). Wherever a record custodian keeps original public records in a location other than the government building, the custodian has a duty to make the public records available in a location convenient to the general public for inspection and copying. In this case, where it appears that an external consultant has acted as an agent on behalf of the District, it is unclear whether the records for the District’s agent were searched. As such, I find that the District must provide additional information detailing its search in order to determine if the District has met its burden under G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii) to provide records that are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. Exemption (d) Exemption (d) allows the withholding of: inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency; but this subclause shall not apply to reasonably completed factual studies or reports on which the development of such policy positions has been or may be based. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d). Exemption (d) is intended to avoid premature release of materials that could taint the deliberative process if disclosed. Its application is limited to recommendations on legal and policy matters found within an ongoing deliberative process. See Babets v. Sec’y of the Exec. Office of Human Servs., 403 Mass. 230, 237 n.8 (1988). Factual reports which are reasonably complete and inferences which can be drawn from factual investigations, even if labeled as opinions or conclusions, are not exempt as deliberative or policy making materials. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(d); see also Envtl. Prot. Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89 (1973) (purely factual matters ----------------------- used in the development of government policy are subject to disclosure). In its June 9th response, the District stated: [Exemption (d)] allows public agencies to withhold preliminary or working materials that are part of inter‐agency or intra‐agency communications related to the development of policy positions. It is specifically intended to protect pre‐ decisional and deliberative materials that have not yet been finalized. The LPS Strategic Plan is a policy‐setting document that will define the district’s priorities, guide initiatives, and inform resource decisions. As such, all draft content and related communications are considered part of the internal deliberative process. Exemption (d) helps ensure that these discussions can occur

Odanis Hernandez SPR25/2625 Page 4 September 17, 2025 openly and effectively, without the premature release of incomplete information that could impact policy development … We can confirm that, at this time, there are no responsive documents in the possession of LPS. The Strategic Plan remains under development and is currently being led by an external consultant. Any materials that exist are in a preliminary, working stage and have not yet been finalized. These materials are being informed by stakeholder engagement and survey data, and remain part of an ongoing deliberative process. Based on the District’s response, I find that the District has not met its burden of specificity to withhold the responsive records in their entirety pursuant to Exemption (d). Any information contained in the responsive records that is factual in nature may be subject to disclosure, as Exemption (d) does not apply to such information. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); Reinstein 378 Mass. at 289-290 (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). Consequently, the District must explain whether segregable portions of the responsive records may be provided. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Guzman 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. Guzman may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Guzman Eileen Bernal