Torres, Edgar v. Cambridge, City of - Office of the City Clerk (SPR 20261263)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 21, 2026 SPR26/1263 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 SPR26/1263 Page 2 April 21, 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 SPR26/1263 Page 3 April 21, 2026 authorization, continuation, or discontinuation of services, whether or not such records were placed in the student file. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0104 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 27, 2026). In my January 27th determination, I ordered the City to clarify how the responsive records can be withheld under G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 34E as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. The City provided a response on April 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Torres petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1263, was opened as a result. On April 16, 2026, the City provided an additional response. 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.

Seah Levy SPR26/1263 Page 4 April 21, 2026 The City’s April 2nd Response In its April 2, 2026 response, the City withheld records pursuant to G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 34E, as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law. See G.L. c. 4, §7(26)(a). Current Appeal In his April 7, 2026 appeal to this office, Mr. Torres stated, “[t]he April 2 response does not cure the deficiencies identified in your determination. Instead, it reasserts the same categorical denial—for a second time—again withholding all records without the required record-specific analysis or consideration of segregability. . . . Rather than conducting the required exemption-specific, record-by-record analysis, it relies on the availability of student records access to justify withholding records in full. This does not address the scope of the request, which includes administrative, staff, and third-party communications not inherently covered by student records protections…” In an April 16, 2026 response, the City argued the following: … The specific information Requestor seeks, beyond the records already provided him, is subject to court orders and was at issue in a complaint filed by Requestor with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“DESE”). The City has responded fully to Requestor’s Request and will not, absent a court order, produce the information Requestor seeks through his purported public records request and separate DESE action, which information is the judicially impounded address of [identified individuals]. . . . On November 6, 2019, the Probate and Family Court allowed a motion to impound [two identified individuals’] address. On December 16, 2020, the Probate and Family Court issued an order allowing Requestor to obtain medical or educational information about his minor [child]. Requestor has leveraged the latter order in a multi-year attempt to badger CPS into providing him judicially protected information. . . … At this point, CPS has shared the full student record, minus the impounded address, with Requestor at least four times. . . In sum, the City faithfully complied with its obligations under the student records law and the Probate and Family Court orders. The City has no further responsive student records left to produce which are not protected by court order. . . In an April 16, 2026 email to this office and the City, Mr. Torres stated the following: … The City’s Letter represents to this office that is has complied with its obligations by providing Requestor access to his [child’s] student records, citing meetings on April 4, May 2, and May 9, 2025, and most recently on April 10, 2026. . .

Seah Levy SPR26/1263 Page 5 April 21, 2026 What was provided at those meeting was a standard academic student file – containing records such as grades, attendance, and similar documents. At no point was I provided with the communications that constitute the core of this request: emails, text messages, memoranda, or other correspondence between CPS administrators, staff, third-party organizations, state agencies including DESE and PRS, attorneys, or other parties regarding my [child’s] educational experience, safety, dismissal procedures, mental health services, or related matters. This distinction is critical. The Public Records request at issue is directed primarily at the second category. The City conflates two entirely separate categories of records. . . The DESE definition of student records and the scope of records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law are not identical. Many of the records I have requested — administrative communications, staff deliberations, policy implementation records, communications with state agencies and third-party organizations — are public records subject to mandatory disclosure regardless of whether they also qualify as student records. The City’s representation that it has satisfied its obligations by providing an academic file does not address, and does not discharge, its separate obligations under the Public Records Law with respect to those records. In short, the City has told this office it has complied. The record does not support that representation. Records in Existence 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). Under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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 the City’s responses, and the information provided in Mr. Torres’ April 16th email communication, it is unclear whether the City possesses additional records responsive to the request. Specifically, it is unclear if the City possesses “communications regarding [Mr. Torres’] [child’s] educational experience, safety, dismissal procedures, mental health services, or related matters.” If the City 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

Seah Levy SPR26/1263 Page 6 April 21, 2026 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”). 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 Franziskus Lepionka, Esq.