Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mass. justices probe whether charter schools fall under state public-records law
Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in SJC13769 over whether Massachusetts charter schools are state agencies and therefore subject to the Commonwealth—s public records law, with counsel for Mystic Valley urging a narrow textual reading and the Attorney General—s Office urging a finding that charter schools— status as "public schools" places their records within the public-records statute.
The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in SJC13769, Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General, v. Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, on whether Massachusetts charter schools are state agencies under the charter-school statute and therefore subject to the public records law.
Charles Waters, counsel for Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, told the court the question is a matter of first impression in Massachusetts and urged reversal of the trial court—s decision. Waters said the statute "doesn't say that it's a state agency" and pointed to provisions in the charter-school statute that treat charter schools as state agencies only in specific, enumerated circumstances (what he described as "carve-outs"). Waters said those carve-outs, plus statutory references to corporate treatment under 156B and extensive reporting obligations to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the state auditor, show the legislature balanced public-funding oversight with operational independence.
A Justice pressed Waters on the text, asking whether charter schools meet the statutory formulations ("agency, political subdivision, or authority") and warning that the five-factor test used in prior MBTA/public-records cases could decide the question. One Justice summarized the skepticism in blunt terms: "It quacks like a duck. It waddles like a duck. It paddles like a duck." Waters responded that Congress and the Legislature explicitly identified the limited situations in which charter schools are treated as state agencies and argued the statute should be read according to that text.
Waters told the court that, in his view, the statutory reporting duties to DESE, the commissioner, and the state auditor fulfill many transparency objectives tied to public funding and that the legislature may have chosen not to impose a separate public-records compliance burden on charter schools for their independent operations.
Carrie Ann Kilcoyne, assistant attorney general for Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, argued that the charter statute itself declares charter schools to be public schools and cited this court's decision in Tampa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86, for the proposition that records of public schools qualify as public records. Kilcoyne said the court need not pick a single statutory label before applying the court's earlier five-factor analysis; she urged the court to begin with the statute and its plain language and to recognize that the charter statute was enacted to serve a public purpose.
Justices and counsel also discussed a regulation identified in the argument (referred to as a CMR, cited by counsel as 9.50) and whether and how a regulation should be read alongside the statute. Counsel acknowledged that a regulation exists but said that, if the court finds the statute does not make charter schools state agencies, the regulation must conform to the statute.
No decision was announced from the bench. The arguments focused on statutory text, prior case law including MBTA-related five-factor analyses, the scope and purpose of reporting obligations to DESE and the state auditor, and the policy question of parental access to records of charter schools.
