Meghan Keegan v. Sandwich, Town of - School Committee (SPR 20252785)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 3, 2025 SPR25/2785 Kevin Sareault Chair Sandwich School Committee 270 Quaker Meeting House Road East Sandwich, MA 02537 Dear Chair Sareault: I have received the petition of Meghan Keegan appealing the response of the Sandwich 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 August 14, 2025, Ms. Keegan stated: I would like the Committee to provide a detailed explanation of how [the] new grade weighting system will work, including: [1] The specific changes being made compared to the current system[;] [2] How these changes will impact students with IEPs and disabilities[;] [3] What steps will be taken to ensure compliance with federal and state disability rights laws during implementation[.] The District responded on August 15 and September 22, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Keegan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2785, 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). 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

Kevin Sareault SPR25/2785 Page 2 October 3, 2025 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. 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 August 15th and September 22nd Responses In its August 15, 2025 response, the District provided a brief explanation of its decision to implement a new system for calculating grade point averages. The District further directed Ms. Keegan to several recorded meetings of its school committee, during which members of the committee discussed the new system. On September 16, 2025, Ms. Keegan posed the following questions related to her request: What policies are in place to ensure this policy will not negatively affect students with disabilities in SPS? Please list them. What evidence do you have showing that, by following these policies, Sandwich Public Schools has ensured students with disabilities will not be negatively impacted? … Does this policy raise the GPA of any school committee member’s student? If so, which members? In its September 22, 2025 response, the District stated that its policy for the calculation of grade point averages was outlined in the Student Handbook. The District further stated that it would not provide information regarding individual students, as “FERPA & MGL protect the privacy rights of each and every student[.]” Current Appeal In her September 22, 2025 petition to this office, Ms. Keegan stated that she was not seeking student information. Ms. Keegan clarified that she was seeking “policies and steps they took to makes sure student with disabilities are not or are negatively impacted and if any members of the SC student benefited from this change.” In a September 23, 2025 telephone conversation with this office, the District stated that it possessed no records responsive to Ms. Keegan’s August 14th request, but expressed a willingness to communicate with Ms. Keegan directly to address her concerns.

Kevin Sareault SPR25/2785 Page 3 October 3, 2025 No Duty to Answer Questions or Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, 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). 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). Conclusion Given that the District possesses no records responsive to Ms. Keegan’s request and this office has no authority to compel the District to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Keegan 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: Meghan Keenan