Cheri Amour Mahan v. Weston, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252978)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 20, 2025 SPR25/2978 Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Technology & Operations Weston Public Schools 89 Wellesley Street Weston, MA 02493 Dear Dr. Trahan: I have received the petition of Cheri Amour Mahan appealing the response of the Weston 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 June 16, 2025, Ms. Mahan requested: [1] All emails and written communications sent between July 1, 2021, and June 1, 2025, that include any of the following [identified individuals] - where [an identified individual] or his educational placement is mentioned. [2] All budget records, invoices, contracts, or payments made by Weston Public Schools for [an identified individual’s] outplacement services, including LABBB Collaborative and Wellesley Public Schools. [3] All administrative memos, policy documents, or guidelines used between 2021-2025 related to the justification, decision-making or approval process for outplacements or IEP-related removals. [4] Any special education staff training materials or internal procedural manuals that governed IEP team decisions and parental rights during the same period. The School initially responded on June 26, 2025 and August 12, 2025. On August 15, 2025, after correspondence with the School, Ms. Mahan modified her request to seek the following records: [1] All emails, internal or external, including attachments, text messages, and other written communications regarding [an identified individual’s] outplacement, covering: 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

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2978 Page 2 October 20, 2025 - Outplacement period: September 1, 2021 – March 31, 2023 - Post-outplacement communications: April 1, 2023 – present - [identified individuals] - Any other Weston Public Schools employee or representative involved in [an identified individual’s] educational placement or related decisions[;] [2] The complete internal investigation report concerning Formal Complaint against [an identified individual], along with all supporting documentation[.] Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2419 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2025) and SPR25/2724 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 25, 2025). In my August 29th determination, I found the School had met its burden to withhold the records responsive to Item 1 of the modified request under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. In my September 25th determination, regarding Item 2 of the modified request, I found that although the School could withhold identifying information of voluntary witnesses and complainants under Exemption (f), the School had not met its burden to withhold the responsive investigation report in its entirety under Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. The School responded on October 10, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Mahan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2978, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, an attorney for the School provided a supplemental response on October 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. 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.

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2978 Page 3 October 20, 2025 The School’s October 10th and October 17th Responses In its October 10, 2025 response, the School continued to cite Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive investigation report in its entirety. On October 17, 2025, an attorney for the School stated: …Ms. Mahan has filed an appeal of the District’s response to the request for records in this matter to Superior Court. As the public records in question are now the subjects of disputes in active litigation, I request that the Supervisor deny this appeal consistent with 950 CMR 32.08(2)(b)(1) and defer to the Superior Court. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Mahan argued: This new “response” again refuses to produce any portion of the requested investigation report or emails and reasserts blanket exemptions under G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c) and (f)—the same arguments your office already rejected… the District had not met its burden and must release segregable, non-exempt portions. In an email to this office on October 17, 2025, Ms. Mahan stated: The Superior Court action was filed specifically because Weston failed to comply with your prior order (SPR25/2724). There has been no judicial ruling on the public records at issue, and no order from the Court staying or resolving the records question. Therefore, the issue is not “currently being adjudicated” within the meaning of the regulation… Weston has had two orders and continues to withhold responsive records without legal basis. Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. This office has reviewed the docket of the trial court and verified that the requested records are the subject of active and ongoing litigation in Middlesex County Superior Court. See Mahan, Cheri Amour vs. Weston Public Schools et al, Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 2581CV02026 (August 18, 2025).

Neil L. Trahan, Ed.D. SPR25/2978 Page 4 October 20, 2025 In light of the pending litigation, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Additionally, I decline to opine on the applicability of Exemptions (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law to the requested records. Please note that a change in the status of this action could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cheri Amour Mahan