Lawrence, James v. Lowell, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20261083)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 6, 2026 SPR26/1083 Jane Mosher-Canty, Esq. Records Access Officer Lowell Public Schools 155 Merrimack Street Lowell, MA 01852 Dear Attorney Mosher-Canty: I have received the petition of James Lawrence appealing the response of the Lowell 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 February 20, 2026, Mr. Lawrence requested the following categories of records, including numerous sub-categories and lists of search parameters: [1] Internal Communications Regarding TSA/403(b) Administration[;] [2] [An identified individual’s] Investigation Records[;] [3] Disability Accommodation Records[;] [4] Internal Complaint Handling[;] [5] 403(b) Plan Compliance, Job Descriptions, Procedures, and Correction Protocols[;] [6] Associational Retaliation Records[;] [7] Personnel and Employment Records[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0817 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 23, 2026). In my March 23rd determination, I closed SPR26/0817 in light of the School providing a response on March 18, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Lawrence petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1083, 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 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

Jane Mosher-Canty, Esq. SPR26/1083 Page 2 April 6, 2026 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 March 18th Response In its March 18, 2026 response, the School provided numerous responsive records and stated, “[t]he following is the list of documents in our possession that pertain to the request made by Mr. Lawrence from Lowell Public Schools on or about February 20,2026... Please note that this is a combination request with the City of Lowell. Any request that was not provided is not in the possession of the Lowell Public Schools.” Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Lawrence states, “[t]he following deficiencies in the March 18, 2026 response: [1] Four certifications contradicted by the response itself or by documents produced within the same response. [2] A thirteen-day gap in production across all named custodians with no communications from any custodian between September 9 and September 21, 2025. [3] Five institutional emails confirmed in Petitioner’s Gmail sent from [an identified address] that do not appear in the production or the McKenna document index. [4] Complete non-response to seven items in Category F naming an active administrative proceeding docket number. [5] Zero produced communications from a named custodian whose involvement is confirmed in a document produced within the same response.

Jane Mosher-Canty, Esq. SPR26/1083 Page 3 April 6, 2026 Additional Records The School is advised that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(ii). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on Mr. Lawrence appeal, it is unclear whether the School possesses additional records responsive to the request. If the School does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See 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”). The School must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Lawrence 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. Lawrence may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: James Lawrence