Sarah Bartlett v. Marblehead, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252816)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 7, 2025 SPR25/2816 Lisa Dimier Records Access Officer Marblehead Public Schools 9 Widger Road Marblehead, MA 01945 Dear Ms. Dimier: I have received the petition of Sarah Bartlett appealing the response of the Marblehead Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 11, 2025, Ms. Bartlett requested, “[a]ll public or private emails, texts messages, social media messages, instant messaging, times of telephone calls, or any other communication between or among [five identified individuals] . . . between the dates of August 1st and September 11th, 2025.” The School responded on September 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Bartlett petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/2816, 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. 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. 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

Lisa Dimier SPR25/2816 Page 2 October 7, 2025 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 School’s September 25th Response In its September 25, 2025 response, the School states the following: The District and/or Town possesses documents responsive to your request. However, due to the magnitude of the request, the District and Town request that you revise your request to clarify and narrow certain aspects to reasonably describe the documents being sought, which would enable prompt and affordable access to any responsive documents. For example, you requested all public or private emails, texts messages, social media messages, instant messaging, times of telephone calls, or any other communication and did not specify topics of communication. The District and Town can best provide a response if you would be able to narrow your request in one of the following ways:  Include specific search terms that would appear in a subject line or body of an email;  Specify what topics of communication you are seeking; and/or  Further narrow the method of communication. The District and Town intend to produce all records responsive to your request, withholding only records and portions of records, if any, that do not constitute public records per the exemptions enumerated by the public records law or that are protected by other legally applicable privileges. If any such records or portions are eventually withheld by the District and/or Town, the District and/or Town will provide you with the specific reasons and exemptions upon which any withholdings are based. Current Appeal In her September 25, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Bartlett indicates that she did not narrow her request following the School’s September 25th response to her request, as described above. She further states, “I requested documents on September 11th. I was given a response on September 25th. [The School has] gone well past the 10 day time frame to produce the documents and are stating they need more time and are not clear on what I want.” Timeliness in Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the

Lisa Dimier SPR25/2816 Page 3 October 7, 2025 timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Ms. Bartlett submitted her request on September 11, 2025, and the School has not provided responsive records nor cited an exemption for withholding the records, I find the School has not met its burden in responding to the request in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the School must provide an estimated date as to when it expects to complete its review and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the School must continue to provide remaining responsive records on a rolling basis. I encourage the parties to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. Bartlett may wish to narrow the parameters of her request or include factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Bartlett with a response to her request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Bartlett may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sarah Bartlett