Arlauskas, John v. Winthrop, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260308)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0308 Tom Delmar, Esq. Records Access Officer Winthrop Public Schools 45 Pauline Street Winthrop, MA 02152 Dear Attorney Delmar: I have received the petition of John Arlauskas appealing the response of Winthrop 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 November 19, 2025, Mr. Arlauskas requested “documentation regarding the recertification notices issued to me in 2025[.]” Specifically, Mr. Arlauskas sought the following: [1] A detailed accounting of all expenditures related to legal services for special education matters for [the School] for the past five fiscal years[:] [a] Total amount spent on legal services related to special education disputes, complaints, mediations, hearings, or due process proceedings before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA)[;] [b] Itemized invoices, billing statements, or summaries from each attorney or law firm used for special education-related legal work[;] and [c] Retainer agreements or contracts with law firms or attorneys who represented or advised the district on special education issues during each year[.] [2] The total legal spending broken down by grade level of the student involved, to the extent permitted without releasing personally identifiable information[;] [3] A list of all law firms and attorneys contracted to represent or advise the district in special education matters during the same five-year period[.] Previous Appeals The requested records were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/3693 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 23, 2025) and SPR26/0091 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

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 2 February 10, 2026 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 22, 2026). In my January 22nd determination, I ordered the School to provide Mr. Arlauskas with a response to his request. The School responded on January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Arlauskas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0308, 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 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 January 23rd Response On January 23, 2026, the School stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption (a) and Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). The School cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as the basis for withholding the requested records. Additionally, the School stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to attorney-client privilege and produced four docket numbers. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Arlauskas contends: My request seeks district-level financial records concerning expenditures for legal services related to special education matters over the past five fiscal years. Specifically, I am requesting aggregate spending information, contracts or retainer agreements, and invoicing summaries, with no request for student names or personally identifiable student information. … This request is not intended to function as discovery, nor does it relate to the

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 3 February 10, 2026 merits of any pending matters before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals. As the Bureau’s Hearing Officers focus on the facts and legal issues specific to individual cases, district-wide financial practices are outside the scope of those proceedings and have no bearing on their adjudication. Accordingly, compliance with this public records request would not impact any pending BSEA hearings. The information requested concerns public expenditures of taxpayer funds and is sought for transparency and accountability purposes consistent with the Massachusetts Public Records Law. I am not requesting attorney work product or privileged communications, and I understand that any responsive records may be redacted as necessary to comply with statutory exemptions protecting student information. 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. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) In its response, the School referenced the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as applicable to withhold the requested records or information.

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 4 February 10, 2026 “Education records” under FERPA are defined as: those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(i-ii). FERPA defines “personally identifiable information” as including, but not limited to: (a) The student’s name; (b) The name of the student’s parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student’s family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the Student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; (t) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. When citing FERPA in its response, the School states, “[b]ecause Winthrop is a public school district, searches of their invoices may return information that can be deduced to relate to specific students, so the district must always review records to ensure that no student information is contained in them. This request’s scope encompasses district records which may contain student record information.” FERPA provides a mechanism which allows for the public disclosure of information from education records when information classified as personally identifiable information is removed. As indicated above, under 34 C.F.R. 99.3 personally identifiable information includes, but is not limited to, student’s name; name of the student’s parents or other family member; address of the student or student’s family; a personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. 99.3.

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 5 February 10, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Medical Information Medical information that is of a personal nature and relates to a specifically named individual may be exempt from disclosure. Brogan v. Sch. Comm. of Westport, 401 Mass. 306, 308 (1987); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Ret. Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 438 (1983). Generally, medical information is sufficiently personal to warrant exemption. Globe Newspaper Co., 338 Mass. at 432-34. There is a strong public policy in Massachusetts that favors confidentiality as to medical data about a person’s body. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Chief Med. Exam’r, 404 Mass. 132, 135 (1987). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 6 February 10, 2026 public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Common Law Attorney-Client Privilege A records custodian claiming the attorney-client privilege under the Public Records Law has the burden of not only proving the existence of an attorney-client relationship, but also (1) that the communications were received from a client during the course of the client’s search for legal advice from the attorney in his or her capacity as such; (2) that the communications were made in confidence; and (3) that the privilege as to these communications has not been waived. See Suffolk Constr. Co. v. Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444, 450 n.9 (2007); see also Hanover Ins. Co. v. Rapo & Jepsen Ins. Servs., 449 Mass. 609, 619 (2007) (stating that the party seeking the attorney-client privilege has the burden to show the privilege applies). Records custodians seeking to invoke the common law attorney-client privilege “are required to produce detailed indices to support their claims of privilege.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. at 460. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, in assessing whether a records custodian has properly withheld records based on the claim of attorney-client privilege, the Supervisor of Records “shall not inspect the record but shall require, as part of the decision making process, that the agency or municipality provide a detailed description of the record, including the names of the author and recipients, the date, the substance of such record, and the grounds upon which the attorney-client privilege is being claimed.” G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Pending Administrative Hearings 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: the Supervisor may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In its January 23rd response, the School also asserts the following: The district objects to this request where it relates to your underlying hearing requests before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), case numbers 2604116, 2510540, 2511137, and 2604122. Where your numerous continued requests are intended as a workaround legal discovery request, and are harassing in nature, the district will not be further responding to this request. In its earlier January 8, 2026 response, the School also stated the following: [Y]ou request 6 categories of documents relating to your Bureau of Special

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 7 February 10, 2026 Education Appeals (BSEA) hearing requests filed on behalf of several [specified individuals]. As an initial matter, Winthrop Public Schools will not be responding to this request where your record request is, in essence, a discovery request related to ongoing litigation before the BSEA referenced above, specifically relating to BSEA Case Numbers 2604116, 2510540, 2511137, and 2604122. In Camera Inspection In order to facilitate a determination as to the applicability of the Exemptions (a) and (c) claims made by the School to withhold responsive records in their entirety, the School must provide this office with an un-redacted copy of a representative sample of the responsive records for in camera inspection. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). After I complete my review of the records, I will return the records to the School’s custody and issue an opinion on the public or exempt nature of the records. The authority to require the submission of records for an in camera inspection emanates from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4); see also G. L. c. 66, § 1. This office interprets the in camera inspection process to be analogous to that utilized by the judicial system. See Rock v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 384 Mass. 198, 206 (1981) (administrative agency entitled deference in the interpretation of its own regulations). Records are not voluntarily submitted, but rather are submitted pursuant to an order by this office that an in camera inspection is necessary to make a proper finding. Records are submitted for the limited purpose of review. This office is not the custodian of records examined in camera, therefore, any request made to this office for records being reviewed in camera will be denied. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4)(c). This office has a long history of cooperation with governmental agencies with respect to in camera inspection. Custodians submit copies of the relevant records to this office upon a promise of confidentiality. This office does not release records reviewed in camera to anyone under any circumstances. Upon a determination of the public record status, records reviewed in camera are promptly returned to the custodian. To operate in any other fashion would seriously impede our ability to function and would certainly affect our credibility within the legal community. Order Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide this office with an un-redacted copy of a representative sample of the responsive records for in camera inspection without delay

Tom Delmar, Esq. SPR26/0308 Page 8 February 10, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Arlauskas