Jacob Schles v. Massachusetts College of Art and Design (SPR 20253008)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 27, 2025 SPR25/3008 Brendan O’Bryan Records Access Officer Office of the President Massachusetts College of Art and Design 621 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Dear Mr. O’Bryan: I have received the petition of Jacob Schles appealing the response of the Massachusetts College of Art and Design (College) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 1, 2025, Mr. Schles requested the following records: [S]ecurity camera footage from the First Floor Tower Building, specifically any cameras covering the rear entrance near the FabLab that could have captured an incident involving a protest, on 4/24/2025, from 3:50 pm to 4:05 pm. . . . [A]lso . . . any recorded radio transmissions from [an identified individual] on 4/24/2025, from 3:50 pm to 4:05 pm. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the College. See SPR25/2412 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 19, 2025). In my August 19th determination, I granted the College a time extension of 20 business days. Subsequently, the College responded on September 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with the College’s response, Mr. Schles petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3008, 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, 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

Brendan O’Bryan SPR25/3008 Page 2 October 27, 2025 § 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 College’s September 8th Response In its September 8, 2025 response, the College provided records responsive to the portion of Mr. Schles’ request seeking, “any recorded radio transmissions from [an identified individual] on 4/24/2025, from 3:50 pm to 4:05 pm.” The College additionally denied Mr. Schles’ request for “security camera footage from the First Floor Tower Building” in its entirety and cited Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law in support of its position. See G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26)(n). Current Appeal In his October 14, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Schles contends that “[t]he reason for denial provided by the RAO is not sufficient in explaining why making the footage public would pose a security risk.” He argues, “[t]his information would also be in the public interest” and notes that “the footage has been shown to several people already. . . .” Further, upon review of the appeal, it appears that Mr. Schles is not objecting to the College’s response to the portion of his request seeking, “any recorded radio transmissions from [an identified individual] on 4/24/2025, from 3:50 pm to 4:05 pm.” Exemption (n) Exemption (n) applies to: records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under subsection (c) of section 10 of chapter 66, is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security.

Brendan O’Bryan SPR25/3008 Page 3 October 27, 2025 G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Exemption (n) allows for the withholding of certain records which if released would jeopardize public safety. The first prong of Exemption (n) examines “whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute;” specifically, the “inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist ‘would find useful to maximize damage.’” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 289-90 (2017). The second prong of Exemption (n) examines “the factual and contextual support for the proposition that disclosure of the record is ‘likely to jeopardize public safety.’” PETA, 477 Mass. at 289-90. The PETA decision further provides that “[b]ecause the records custodian must exercise ‘reasonable judgment’ in making that determination, the primary focus on review is whether the custodian has provided sufficient factual heft for the supervisor of public records or the reviewing court to conclude that a reasonable person would agree with the custodian’s determination given the context of the particular case.” Id. PETA also provides that “[t]hese two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian’s burden in demonstrating ‘reasonable judgment’ and vice versa.” Id. at 290. In its September 8, 2025 response, under Exemption (n), the College stated the following: . . . [T]he College responds that the security camera footage requested is exempted from production under exemption (n), G.L. c.4, §7(26)(n). . . . Please be advised that security footage from the location requested are records related to the security and safety of the College’s building and the disclosure of such footage could expose the capabilities of the security system, expose the positions of security cameras, and expose the area captured by the cameras and where the cameras do not reach, which in turn jeopardizes the effectiveness of the security system in place at the College. To be clear, production of security camera footage could result in exposing security vulnerabilities that could be exploited, jeopardizing the safety of the campus community, including the College’s employees and students. I find that the College did not provide factual heft to support the withholding of the requested records pursuant to Exemption (n). Specifically, the College has not sufficiently explained how disclosure of the records are “likely to jeopardize public safety.” See PETA at 289-90. It is also unclear if the College could provide segregable portions of the responsive records. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). See Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289- 90 (1979) (the statutory exemptions are narrowly construed and are not blanket in nature). The College must clarify these matters.

Brendan O’Bryan SPR25/3008 Page 4 October 27, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the College is ordered to provide Mr. Schles with a response to his 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. Mr. Schles may appeal the substantive nature of the College’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jacob Schles