Jonathan Gerhardson v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20253803)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 9, 2026 SPR25/3803 Christine M. Wilda Associate Chancellor for Compliance University of Massachusetts, Amherst 340F Whitmore Building 181 President’s Drive Amherst, MA 01003 Dear Ms. Wilda: I have received the petition of Jonathan Gerhardson 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 September 12, 2025, Mr. Gerhardson requested the following: [1] [A] log of requests for information about current, former, or prospective [u]niversity students or employees, including but not limited to requests which are warrants or subpoenas, made by state, local, or federal government agents and/or law enforcement; [2] If no log exists, records related to each individual request as described above. Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR25/2873 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 15, 2025) and SPR25/3129 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025). In my November 7th determination, I found that UMass had not met its burden to withhold the records, in their entirety, under Exemptions (a), (c) and (f) of the Public Records Law. Further, I found that UMass did not identify the types of records in its possession that are responsive to the request. On December 12, 2025, UMass provided a response. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3803, 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 SPR25/3803 Page 2 January 9, 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. Gerhardson states, “... the University’s latest response continues to apply blanket withholdings and misapply exemptions.... In your November 7 determination, you explicitly stated that ‘Exemption (f) invites a ‘case-by-case consideration’ and that the University failed to demonstrate how disclosure ‘would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement’…” UMass’ December 12th Response In its December 12, 2025 response, UMass stated the following: In response to the attached determination, we reviewed all of the records we could find and summarize here: For the calendar year 2025, UMPD did not apply for any arrest warrants. There may have been cases we brought to court in which the defendant failed to appear, and an arrest warrant was issued by the court, but we do not have that in any type of condensed report. We would need to search by name. We anecdotally know that we have applied for and executed search warrants (property, phone records etc.) in calendar year 2025 but those are also not entered into reportable fields in our records system. Those would again, be by name and are in hard copies of the official records. We do not believe any search warrants were applied for or executed during the March-present time. Arrests of persons with outstanding warrants by any police departments- the table below indicates that from March 2025 to now we arrested 14 people that had

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3803 Page 3 January 9, 2026 outstanding warrants from a police department or court. UMass further attached information on subpoenas and stated, “[a]ttached is information on subpoenas.” In addition, UMass indicated, “[w]ith respect to Homeland Security actions and interactions, please see the attached. Also please note that we have withheld correspondence from our field reps containing the following: This document, and any attachment(s), is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain information that is confidential, law enforcement sensitive, pre-decisional, deliberative and/or U.S. Government information. It is not for release, review, retransmission, dissemination or use by anyone other than the intended recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply immediately to the sender and delete this message. Any disclosure of this communication and its attachment(s) must be approved by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This communication may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), (b) (7).” Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-46 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), (b)(7) provides in pertinent part as follows: (5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which that would

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3803 Page 4 January 9, 2026 not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested; (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), (b)(7). Burden of Specificity in Claiming Exemptions Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the records custodian to establish the applicability of an exemption. 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. See also 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). UMass’ response did not contain the specificity required in a denial of access to public records. With respect to correspondence withheld from disclosure, it is unclear how the statute cited above, permits UMass to withhold the responsive records from disclosure. Please be advised that for Exemption (a) to apply, a statute must either expressly state that the withheld record is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, or limit dissemination of said information to a defined group or individuals or entities. Consequently, although UMass cites 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), (b)(7), UMass has not demonstrated how the statute specifically or by necessary implication permits it to withhold the requested records from disclosure. Further, with regard to the “subpoena table 3/1/25…” that was provided in redacted form, UMass did not cite any exemption as a basis to redact the record. As a result, I find that UMass

Christine M. Wilda SPR25/3803 Page 5 January 9, 2026 did not satisfy its burden in responding to this portion of the request. Consequently, UMass must identify an exemption under the Public Records Law and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to redact the record. UMass must clarify these matters. Conclusion Accordingly, UMass is ordered to provide Mr. Gerhardson 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. Mr. Gerhardson may appeal the substantive nature of UMass’ response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jonathan Gerhardson