Please withdraw request #2024-0038 and replace it with this modified request which is greatly narrowed in scope. For email creation dates of November 3, 10, 17, 24 2023, please provide all email (ie. created, received, sent, draft or deleted) and attachments including each of the following individuals - where the recipient list includes ONLY one or both of the others named here: Gary Christenson, Chuck Ranaghan, Toni Mertz
Please include records from ANY EMAIL ACCOUNT (e.g. multiple accounts are known to exist for one or more of those named), administered by any email system, (e.g. cityofmalden.org, maldenps.org, Gmail or any other) for Malden or MPS business (covering both public body and operations).
If any other individual, not named here, acts as an email proxy designated, directed, requested or presumed to serve email on behalf of any of the three individuals named, whether to convey or relay business on their behalf, please include that email as a proxy for any of the THREE named individuals for the requested dates. Thank you.
Please be advised that we have found five emails that meet the criteria you set in your request.
MPSemail2.PDF-To comply with your request, Malden redacted one email soliciting advice from the attorney for Malden. The Supreme Judicial Court stated that a governmental entity may assert attorney-client privilege to protect documents against disclosure where they contain communications between lawyer and client for purpose of obtaining legal advice. Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Div. of Cap. Asset Mgmt., 449 Mass. 444 (2007). Given that some emails will relay communications between Malden and its attorneys, these communications were not shared with the public and were shared in confidence, there was no waiver of the privilege. They must be redacted. “The privilege enable[s] clients to make full disclosure to legal counsel of all relevant facts, no matter how embarrassing or damaging these facts might be, so that counsel may render fully informed legal advice.” Suffolk, 449 Mass. At 449. The Supervisor has similarly stated in the Public Records Guide that segregation and redaction “under the attorney-client privilege has also been found to be ‘require by law.’”
MPSemail1.PDF-Beyond attorney-client privilege, the second email was redacted as it contained student record information. In Champa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86 (2015), the Supreme Judicial Court held that a settlement agreement, between a public school district and the parents of a child who required special education services at an out-of-district private institution, was not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law based upon Exemption (a) (which protects from disclosure records that are “… specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute,” MGL c. 4, § 7(26)(a)).
The SJC in Champa relied upon state and federal regulations mandating confidentiality of student/education records; ruled that the settlement agreement was an education record; and likewise noted, in footnote 8 of the case, that the school district’s receipt of federal funds was conditioned on non-disclosure of education records. Accordingly, the settlement agreement was not a public record based upon Exemption (a). While Exemptions (a) exempted the agreement from the definition of a public record, the Champa court nonetheless ruled that the agreement should be redacted to protect personally identifying information; and that once redacted, the agreement shall be disclosed. The SJC likewise remanded the case to the trial court “… regarding the necessary and appropriate redactions of personally identifying information to be made …” 473 Mass. at 98-99.
Like the agreement at issue in Champa, one email contained personal identifying information of a public school student who enjoys mandated confidentiality; indeed, such documents, if released, would reveal the identities, disabilities and information on the student’s educational programming. Further, since the email relates to the educational services and programming that Malden is providing to a student, this records should be deemed exempted from Public Records Law disclosure under Exemption (a) because, as supported by Champa, state and federal regulations compel Malden to protect educational records from disclosure.
Request Date
2024-02-01
Agency Tracking
2024-0049
Acquisition Notes
This record was automatically imported from https://www.townforms.com/FOIADirect-MaldenMACitizens/