Koray Kose v. Arlington, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253182)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 13, 2025 SPR25/3182 Robert M. Spiegel Records Access Officer Arlington Public Schools 14 Mill Brook Drive Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Mr. Spiegel: I have received the petition of Koray Kose appealing the response of Arlington 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 October 20, 2025, Mr. Kose requested the following: [1] All documentation related to the business contract with [an identified individual]. [2] The complete contract and expense review for the entire duration of that engagement from its original start. Also the reasoning for engaging outside council. [3] All procurement details, including the original bid documentation, renewal history, and any justification provided for utilizing external counsel when the town has its own legal department capable of managing such matters. The School responded on October 28, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Kose petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3182, 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). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in 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

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/3182 Page 2 November 13, 2025 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 October 28th Response In its October 28, 2025 response, the School provided records responsive to Mr. Kose’s first request and responded to each request accordingly: [1] The District has identified records attached hereto. [2] The District is providing the attached records responding to your first request. The District possesses no documents entitled “expense review.” You are entitled to clarify or modify the scope of your request. The District also has no documents explaining the reasoning for engaging outside counsel. [3] The District has not identified any responsive records. You are entitled to clarify or modify the scope of this request. Current Appeal In his October 28, 2025 appeal, Mr. Kose contends: I am submitting this formal complaint regarding the unlawful procurement, unauthorized renewal, and unapproved rate increase of legal services provided by [an identified individual] to the Arlington Public Schools. … Accordingly, I am requesting: [1] Full disclosure of all invoices, amounts paid, and payment dates related to [an identified individual’s] services. [2] Written explanation of the rationale and authority for both the renewal and the 18.1% hourly rate increase. [3] Identification of all individuals who approved or authorized the renewal and rate change. [4] Confirmation of whether the School Committee or Town Counsel was informed or voted on these actions. [5] Immediate initiation of an independent investigation by the Town and the Massachusetts Inspector General into possible violations of M.G.L. c. 30B and other applicable procurement or ethics laws. [6] Public disclosure of findings and corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/3182 Page 3 November 13, 2025 … Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and provide a written response outlining the next steps, responsible officials, and a timeline for investigation. I am also forwarding this communication to the Supervisor of Public Records, Attorney General’s Office, and Office of the Inspector General for independent oversight. Upon review, the School has provided records responsive to Mr. Kose’s first request and responded to each request accordingly. I find that the basis of Mr. Kose’s appeal is unclear. Mr. Kose is reminded that all petitions for appeal “shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor’s objections to the response or failure to timely respond.” 950 C.M.R. 32.08(l)(f). Conclusion Accordingly, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. Mr. Kose may wish to clarify his specific objections to the School’s response. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Koray Kose