Jenn Gordon v. Bedford, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252788)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 6, 2025 SPR25/2788 Erin Crowley Executive Coordinator Office of the Superintendent Bedford Public Schools 97 McMahon Road Bedford, MA 01730 Dear Ms. Crowley: I have received the petition of Jenn Gordon appealing the response of the Bedford Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 29, 2025, Ms. Gordon requested the following: [C]opies of all current employment contracts for all central or mail office individuals working in the following roles and offices: • Superintendent • Assistant Superintendent • Human Resources Department • Business Office • Any other staff based in the central or main office reporting directly to or working under the supervision of the superintendent, assistant superintendent, humans resources, or business office. The School responded on August 12, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Gordon petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2788, 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). 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

Erin Crowley SPR25/2788 Page 2 October 6, 2025 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. 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 August 12th Response In its August 12, 2025 response, the School provides a link to a website and explains that the link “include[s] the current employment contracts for all central office personnel identified as responsive to your request, including those serving in the roles and departments specified.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Gordon claims that “incorrect contracts were sent” and argues the following: - . . . Superintendent. The new contract was discussed at the School Committee meeting on June 11, 2025 and voted on, therefore a copy of that one should have been provided as well. . . . - Upon further investigation into the above matter it appears that 3 positions were changed/added to and salaries updated . . . but only 1 of the new contracts was included in this PRR, which was Executive Assistant to the Super. The 2 contracts that were not included and I am requesting now are as follows: 1. . . . HR Generalist. The provided contract still says Administrative Assistant to the HR with the salary commensurate of an Admin Asst. . . . 2. . . . Executive Assistant. The school committee memo . . . states that this position is now an Executive Coordinator and the provided contract and file name still say Executive Assistant with the salary commensurate of an Admin Asst. Records in Existence 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, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior

Erin Crowley SPR25/2788 Page 3 October 6, 2025 knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on the School’s response, and the information provided in Ms. Gordon’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the School possesses additional records responsive to Ms. Gordon’s request. If the School does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Gordon with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Ms. Gordon may further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jenn Gordon