Joseph W. Ford v. Attleboro, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20250998)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 23, 2025 SPR25/0998 David Sawyer Superintendent Attleboro Public School District 100 Rathbun Willard Drive Attleboro, MA 02703-2799 Dear Superintendent Sawyer: I have received the petition of Joseph Ford appealing the response of the Attleboro Public School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 28, 2025, Mr. Ford requested: [1] All print job logs (including document names, users, timestamps, and originating IP addresses or workstation IDs) from March 5, 2025, 12:57 PM to 5:00 PM, for all printers located in: [a] The Central Administration Office [b] Departments within or reporting directly to Central Office, including but not limited to Special Education, Student Services, and the Office of Equity. [2] All email access logs for [an identified individual] from March 5, 2025, 12:57 PM to 5:00 PM, including: [a] Login and logout timestamps [b] Device/browser types used [c] Any metadata available that indicates email access and/or activity during the relevant period[.] On April 10, 2025, the District provided responsive records for Item 2, but stated it did not possess records for Item 1. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Mr. Ford petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0998, 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

David Sawyer SPR25/0998 Page 2 April 23, 2025 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. Att’y 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 District April 10th response In its April 10, 2025 response, the District states, “[a]s to the request concerning all print log jobs from March 5, 2025 … there are no responsive documents in the custody, possession, or control of the District.” Current Appeal In his appeal to this office, Mr. Ford states in regards to Item 1: In its response, the District claimed that ‘there are no responsive documents in the custody, possession, or control of the District.’ Given the widespread use of centralized and networked printers within school districts, this statement defies standard practice and reasonable expectation. Modern networked printing systems — whether managed via internal Windows Print Servers, PaperCut, or other enterprise tools — automatically log print jobs for auditing, security, and administrative tracking. These logs are essential in any organization with multiple users accessing shared printers. It is difficult to believe that a district of Attleboro’s size, operating under the oversight of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), lacks any technical infrastructure that generates and retains such logs. If the District’s assertion is true, it may raise broader concerns about its compliance with basic information security standards.

David Sawyer SPR25/0998 Page 3 April 23, 2025 No Duty to Create Records Please note 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, 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 G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, 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). In an email to this office on April 22, 2025, the District confirmed that it has no additional responsive records to Mr. Ford’s request. Conclusion Where the District confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Mr. Ford’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Ford is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Ford