Gerhardson, Jonathan v. University of Massachusetts - Amherst (SPR 20260996)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 7, 2026 SPR26/0996 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); SPR25/3129 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 7, 2025) and SPR25/3803 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 9, 2026). In my January 9th determination, I found that UMass did not meet its burden of specificity to withhold the responsive records under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. On February 17, 2026, UMass provided a response. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Gerhardson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0996, 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 SPR26/0996 Page 2 April 7, 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 March 19, 2026 appeal, Mr. Gerhardson states, “[i]t is my understanding that due to these records including emails sent by ICE employees, who -- as you may have seen in the news recently, have been arresting and in some cases killing people in broad daylight, in many cases doing so in violation of the law -- the University is reluctant to release the files unless your office orders them to. I can sympathize with UMass feeling that way, but it does not absolve their responsibilities under the state public record law.” It does not appear Mr. Gerhardson is contesting the redactions made in the records provided. UMass’ February 17th Response In its February 17, 2026 response, UMass states the following: [w]e again cite an excerpt of that language now: “[a]ny 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).” In your analysis you spent some time analyzing 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), (b) (7) and considered whether or not that statute that would permit the withholding of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement correspondence pursuant to G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). We never claimed that it would. There are two declarations of note in the language quoted from the Immigration

Christine M. Wilda SPR26/0996 Page 3 April 7, 2026 and Customs Enforcement correspondence. The first is a directive: “[a]ny disclosure of this communication and its attachment(s) must be approved by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” [Emphasis added.] Put simply, a federal enforcement agency is directing the University in writing that we must not disclose its correspondence to us without its approval. How is that not necessary legal implication that we are prohibited from disclosing? In fact, it’s not implication, it’s an explicit directive. We are being directed by a federal agency in charge of enforcement actions to not disclose information. We have received no approval from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that we can disclose the correspondence here. The second declaration contained in the cited language provides that: “[t]his communication may be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, (b) (7).” Maybe it may be exempt. That is a question resolved by a request to the federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for its records. Such a request would be made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Burden of Specificity 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. The excerpt that UMass cites in its response is not a basis under the Public Records Law to withhold responsive records from disclosure. Consequently, UMass withheld records without claiming any exemption(s) in the Public Records Law that would support the withholding of the responsive records. Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). As a result, I find that UMass did not satisfy its burden in responding to this records request. Therefore, UMass must identify an exemption that applies to withhold the records from disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). 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.

Christine M. Wilda SPR26/0996 Page 4 April 7, 2026 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