Patricia D’Ambrosio v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (SPR 20253775)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 8, 2026 SPR25/3775 Jonathan Spadafora Records Access Officer Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 135 Santilli Highway Everett, MA 02149 Dear Mr. Spadafora: I have received the petition of Patricia D’Ambrosio appealing the response of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (Department) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 16, 2025, Ms. D’Ambrosio requested “all internal and external communications of any type for PRS numbers 14070, 14261, 14495, and 14322.” Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/3712 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 17, 2025). In my December 17th determination, I learned the Department provided a supplemental response to Ms. D’Ambrosio and this office on December 17, 2025. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Ms. D’Ambrosio petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3775, 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 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 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

Jonathan Spadafora SPR25/3775 Page 2 January 8, 2026 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 Department’s December 17th Response On December 17, 2025, the Department stated: Please find attached records responsive to your request. … Please be advised that pursuant to the statutory exemption, G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(a), the Department has removed personally identifying information about specific students found in education records. In Champa v. Weston, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that personally identifiable information about students, as protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g, falls under exemption (a) of the Massachusetts public records law. 473 Mass. 86 (2015). Further, pursuant to the privacy exemption to Massachusetts Public Records Law, G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(c), the Department has redacted the personal cellphone number of the district’s attorney. Finally pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, certain records that were responsive to your request have been withheld. The attorney-client privilege applies to “communications between government agencies and agency counsel ... as long as they are made confidentially and for the purpose of obtaining legal advice for the agency.” Suffolk Const. Co. Inc. v. Divisions of Capital Asset Management, 449 Mass. 444, 450-451 (2007) (quoting E.S. Epstein, The Attorney–Client Privilege and the Work–Product Doctrine 127 (4th ed.2001).) In instances where the privilege applied to an entire communication, the Department withheld it and described the record in the attached privilege log[.] Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. D’Ambrosio contends: [1] No phone call notes were included. [2] Email attachments, including the zip file “cheat sheet” are not included, but are identified in the emails. [3] No meeting notes were included.

Jonathan Spadafora SPR25/3775 Page 3 January 8, 2026 Additional Records 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). 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). In accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior 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 issues raised in Ms. D’Ambrosio’s appeal, it is unclear whether the Department possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, the Department must clarify whether it possesses “. . . phone call notes[,] [e]mail attachments, including the zip file ‘cheat sheet’[, and] meeting notes . . .” To the extent that additional records exist, I find the Department must provide them in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law or identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The Department must clarify this matter. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the Department stated in an email correspondence to this office on January 7, 2026, “. . . the Department intends to provide a further response to the requestor within 10 business days of your determination on this matter.” Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Ms. D’Ambrosio 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. D’Ambrosio may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Patricia D’Ambrosio