Alasdair Roberts v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20253799)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR25/3799 Christine M. Wilda Associate Chancellor for Compliance University of Massachusetts – Amherst 181 President’s Drive 340F Whitmore Building Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Alasdair Roberts appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (UMass) 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. Roberts requested “[e]mail correspondence between UMass Amherst School of Public Policy and NASPAA . . . for the period between January 1, 2025 and March 31, 2025: All email messages between [two specified email addresses] [and] [a]ll email messages between [two specified email addresses].” Prior Appeals and In Camera Review This request was the subject of prior appeals and an in camera review. See SPR25/2417 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 29, 2025) and SPR25/2823 Determinations of the Supervisor of Records (October 7, 2025 and October 31, 2025). In my October 31st determination, I found that UMass did not meet its burden to withhold the records under Exemptions (d) and (u) of the Public Records Law. Specifically, UMass had not demonstrated that the withheld records constitute inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed by the agency. Further, I found that UMass did not provide any supporting information to demonstrate how disclosure of the records would taint any ongoing deliberative process pursuant to Exemption (d) of the Public Records Law. In addition, I found that UMass had not demonstrated that the withheld records are trade secrets or other proprietary information provided to UMass by research sponsors or private concerns. UMass responded on December 23, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Roberts petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3799, was opened as a result. 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

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3799 Page 2 January 16, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Roberts states, “[a]s I understand it, UMass has simply matched the records released by UConn. The request submitted to UMass was different in scope than the request to UConn. My understanding is that there are additional messages covered by the UMass request which are still being withheld. The fact that they are not within the UConn release has nothing to do with a position taken by UConn; they simply were not within the scope of that request.” UMass’ December 23rd Response In its December 23, 2025 response, UMass cited Exemption (u) of the Public records Law to redact the requested records. Exemption (u) Exemption (u) applies to: trade secrets or other proprietary information of the University of Massachusetts, including trade secrets or proprietary information provided to the University by research sponsors or private concerns. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(u).

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3799 Page 3 January 16, 2026 In its response, UMass states, “... attached are records responsive to the request. Consistent with the response from the University of Connecticut to a similar request, we’ve redacted information that is proprietary to the University of Massachusetts (the “University”) and, we infer, proprietary by the University of Connecticut as well (given its redaction). Such redaction is allowable by the University under exemption (u) to Section 7(26) of the Massachusetts General Laws.” Propriety information as defined in 50 U.S.C. 1708(d)(7) is as follows: The term “proprietary information” means competitive bid preparations, negotiating strategies, executive emails, internal financial data, strategic business plans, technical designs, manufacturing processes, source code, data derived from research and development investments, and other commercially valuable information that a person has developed or obtained if— (A) the person has taken reasonable measures to keep the information confidential; and (B) the information is not generally known or readily ascertainable through proper means by the public. 50 U.S.C. § 1708(d)(7). Based on UMass’ response, in conjunction with my previous in camera review of the records, it is unclear how the redacted information constitutes propriety information that can be withheld under Exemption (u). UMass has not demonstrated how “[e]mail correspondence between UMass Amherst School of Public Policy and NASPAA” is propriety information. Particularly, based on the federal definition of propriety information, it is not certain what reasonable measures UMass has taken to ensure the redacted information has been kept confidential, nor how it is not readily ascertainable through proper means by the public. 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). Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). UMass must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, UMass is ordered to provide Mr. Roberts with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten 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. Roberts may appeal the substantive nature of UMass’ response within 90 days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3799 Page 4 January 16, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Alasdair Roberts