Tracey Lincoln v. Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District (SPR 20253171)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 12, 2025 SPR25/3171 Judy MacDougall Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District 166 Mt. Prospect Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Dear Ms. MacDougall: I have received the petition of Tracey Lincoln appealing the response of the Bridgewater Raynham Regional 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 October 23, 2025, Ms. Lincoln requested the following: I am writing to submit a request to records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This request follows a previous request I submitted on which was denied based on G.L. c.66, §10 and G.L. c. 4, §7(26) Exemption (c) as it is part of the named personnel file and information, and are subject to attorney-client privilege. Specifically, I am requesting a copy of the letter of harassment associated with the email dated December 1, 2024 and the several documents that are associated as it was share that are being withheld. … Please include any documentation, correspondence, or related records that fall under this request… The District responded on October 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Lincoln petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3171, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request In her request, Ms. Lincoln states the following: After I recently shared this information, I was informed that if the letter and documents associated was provided from the union to the superintendent, it is not protected under attorney-client privilege. Also it involves me not [an identified 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

Judy MacDougall SPR25/3171 Page 2 November 12, 2025 individual] performance, so should not be withheld due to personnel records. Therefore, I request that you reconsider my request. Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Lincoln’s status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 October 28th Response In its October 28, 2025 response the District stated, “I am in receipt of your request for reconsideration…Please clarify with whom the information was provided, specifically the Secretary of State Public Record[s] Division, and the authority on which you rely for this reconsideration.” Current Appeal In her October 28, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Lincoln stated, “I am writing to formally appeal the denial of my public records request submitted on October 23, 2025 concerning the harassment complaint letter…I understand from the response received from the [District] that my request was denied based on G.L. c.66, §10 and G.L. c. 4, §7(26) Exemption (c)…The denial references attorney-client privilege and personal privacy protections…”

Judy MacDougall SPR25/3171 Page 3 November 12, 2025 Burden of Specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be on the custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption to withhold or redact 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”). See also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511; 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). Accordingly, the District’s response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. The District did not identify the records in its possession that it intends to withhold from disclosure. Further, the District has not cited an exemption for withholding or redacting the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Lincoln 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. Lincoln may appeal the substantive nature of the City’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Tracey Lincoln