Michael Pacy v. Shrewsbury, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20251764)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 30, 2025 SPR25/1764 Chris Girardi Records Access Officer Shrewsbury Public School District 100 Maple Avenue Shrewsbury, MA 01545 Dear Mr. Girardi: I have received the petition of Michael Pacy appealing the response of the Shrewsbury 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 April 9, 2025, Mr. Pacy requested “… a survey [sent] via ParentSquare on 11/27/2024 called School Climate and Culture survey … limit the [request] to the High School[.]” Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR25/1764 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 9, 2025). In my June 9th determination, I found that the District was required to provide responsive records following the payment of a reasonable fee. The District responded on June 20, 2025. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Pacy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1764, 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 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. 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

Chris Girardi SPR25/1764 Page 2 June 30, 2025 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 District’s June 20th Response In its June 20, 2025 response, the District provided Mr. Pacy with redacted copies of the responsive records. Current Appeal In his June 20, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Pacy contended that the District had violated the Public Records Law by failing to provide records in a timely manner, and “… ultimately charging [him] a fee and then sharing [his] request publicly (public was not charged a fee) before even [providing him] the data[.]” Mr. Pacy did not object to the redaction of the responsive records. Where the District has provided Mr. Pacy with responsive records and the Public Records Law does not prohibit the public disclosure of said records, I find that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Pacy in the appeal petition. Conclusion In compliance with the Public Records Law, the Supervisor of Records may only issue determinations where a violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has occurred. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(a). Given that no violation of G. L. c. 66, § 10 has been asserted by Mr. Pacy in the appeal petition, I am unable to issue a determination at this time. If Mr. Pacy 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, § l0A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Pacy