Torres, Edgar v. Cambridge, City of - Law Department (SPR 20260104)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 27, 2026 SPR26/0104 Seah Levy Public Records Access Officer City of Cambridge 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Ms. Levy: I have received the petition of Edgar Torres appealing the response of the City of Cambridge (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 22, 2025, Mr. Torres requested the following for the time period of “January 1, 2023 through October 1, 2023, and January 1, 2025 to the present…Where specific times below identify a narrower or later start date (e.g., June 2025 or October 2025), those dates are intentional and control from those subject matters”: [1] All emails, text messages, memoranda, notes, reports, or other written or electronic communications between King Open School or Cambridge Public School staff (including administrators, Family Liaison(s), teachers, assistant teachers, school staff, and after-school program staff) and any third parties, including but not limited to: [a] Nonprofit organizations or advocates, including DeNovo, Transition House, or any other similar entities[;] [b] Shelter staff[;] [c] Attorneys or representatives for the other custodial parent, including but not limited to [two identified individuals][;] [d] State agencies or outside entities, including the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) or Program Review Services (PRS)[;] [2] This request includes text messages or other messaging communications between CPS or King Open School staff—including Family Liaisons, teachers, assistant teachers, nurses, social workers, administrators, or after-school staff— 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

Seah Levy SPR26/0104 Page 2 January 27, 2026 and the other custodial parent, where such communications relate to [an identified individual] to any school-related matter[;] [3] The requested records should include communications that reference or relate to any of the following: [a] [An identified individual][;] [b] [An identified individual][;] [c] Custody, attendance, dismissal, safety, enrollment, or other school- related decision-making[;] [d] Any parental inquiries, complaints, or investigations involving my family[;] [e] Any references, discussions, concerns, or commentary regarding [an identified individual’s] physical health, mental health, medical needs, hygiene, safety, overall wellbeing, whether formal or informal[;] [4] Any records from June 1, 2025 to the present reflecting how King Open School and CPS responded to my June 2025 complaint regarding [an identified individual] being dismissed to unauthorized individuals, including: (a) communications documenting the initial response to the complaint; (b) internal discussions, deliberations, or coordination in June and July 2025 among the principal, assistant principal, CPS administrators, or School Committee members and any other staff acting in their official capacity regarding dismissal procedures or safety concerns; and (c) the subsequent creation, discussion, authorization, implementation, or enforcement of the practice requiring caregivers or authorized pickup adults to provide or leave copies of personal photo identification. This request includes emails or messages sent by school or district administrators to the other custodial parent, to school staff or teachers, or to other administrators; records describing remedial actions or proposed solutions; and records reflecting how this practice was communicated, implemented, or applied to my family as compared to other parents or caregivers. Responsive records include internal emails, memoranda, draft policies, guidance to staff or teachers, training materials, or other communications, whether or not such records were formally published. [5] Any records from October 1, 2025 to the present relating to the provision, coordination, suspension, modification, or consideration of mental health or counseling services for [an identified individual] through the provider known as Cartwheel, including records reflecting communications from the other custodial parent objecting to or withholding consent for such services, and records reflecting how King Open School or CPS staff responded to, evaluated, or acted upon those communications. This includes, but is not limited to, emails or messages sent to or from the principal, assistant principal, school counselors, nurses, social workers, CPS administrators, the other custodial parent, her attorneys or representatives, or any third-party providers regarding consent,

Seah Levy SPR26/0104 Page 3 January 27, 2026 authorization, continuation, or discontinuation of services, whether or not such records were placed in the student file. The City provided a response on January 7, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Torres petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0104, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that under the Public Records Law 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 Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Torres’ status will play no role in a determination as the whether the records should be disclosed or withheld under the Public Records Law. 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. See 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. See 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 City’s January 7th Response In its January 7, 2026 response, the City withheld records pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 3[4]E, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(a).

Seah Levy SPR26/0104 Page 4 January 27, 2026 Current Appeal In his January 11, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Torres stated, “[t]he City issued a blanket denial citing M.G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(a) and M.G.L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 3[4]E. This denial fails to comply with the Massachusetts Public Records Law…” 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, 545-546 (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. In its response, the City first cites G. L. c. 71, § 34D, which provides in pertinent part: The board of education shall adopt regulations relative to the maintenance, retention, duplication, storage and periodic destruction of student records by the public elementary and secondary schools of the commonwealth. Such rules and regulations shall provide that a parent or guardian of any pupil shall be allowed to inspect academic, scholastic, or any other records concerning such pupil which are kept or are required to be kept. G. L. c. 71, § 34D. Additionally, the City cites G. L. c. 71, § 34E, which provides in pertinent part:

Seah Levy SPR26/0104 Page 5 January 27, 2026 Each school committee shall, at the request of a parent or guardian of a student, allow such parent or guardian to inspect academic, scholastic, or any other records concerning such student that are kept or are required to be kept, regardless of the age of such student. Each school committee shall, at the request of a student eighteen years of age or older, allow such student complete access to all school records relative to him or her. Based on the City’s response, I find the City must identify the record(s) it possesses that it is withholding from disclosure. Additionally, it is unclear how the responsive record(s) may be withheld under G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 34E. The City merely cites the statutes without any further explanation as to the statutes’ applicability to the responsive record(s). A records custodian is required to not only cite an exemption but to specifically explain the applicability of the exemption to the requested records for compliance with the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). Further, it is unclear how the records may be withheld in their entirety. It should be noted that any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a). 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). The City must clarify these matters. Greater Right of Access to the Records Where the statutes list authorized persons that may have access to the responsive records, Mr. Torres may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. This office encourages Mr. Torres and the City to communicate directly to determine if there is another means affording Mr. Torres a greater right of access to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the City is ordered to provide Mr. Torres 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. Torres 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: Edgar Torres