Kelly Woods v. Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District (SPR 20253335)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 25, 2025 SPR25/3335 Dr. Marc Smith Superintendent Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District Administration Office 296 Station Avenue South Yarmouth, MA 02664 Dear Dr. Smith: I have received the petition of Kelly Woods appealing the response of the Dennis- Yarmouth Regional 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 October 28, 2025, Ms. Woods requested: [C]opies of any records documenting a protective custody warrant or the removal of . . . [an identified individual] from Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School on May 15, 2025, by [an identified] Officer . . . or any representative of the Dennis Police Department[:]. . . [1] Any school-based incident report or administrative record indicating the date, time . . . , and reason for [an identified individual’s] removal from school[;] [2] The name and badge number of the removing agency or officer[;] [3] Any DCF notification, Form 29C, or other documentation the school received referencing a protective-custody order or placement[;] [4] The school’s custody-verification log or chain-of-custody documentation for this event[;] [5] All emails or internal communications among school staff, the SRO, and administrators relating to this incident (May 12–19, 2025)[;] [6] Any warrant or court order physically presented to school personnel and any copy retained by the district[;] [7] Visitor logs, security sign-ins, or SRO activity logs showing law enforcement presence on May 15, 2025. The District responded on October 30, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Subsequently, on October 30, 2025, Ms. Woods modified her request to include “the district’s historical custody 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

Dr. Marc Smith SPR25/3335 Page 2 November 25, 2025 and placement documentation for [an identified individual] prior to July 24, 2025—specifically, any administrative or correspondence records reflecting parental decision-making authority, DCF involvement, or placement verification maintained by the district.” In modifying her request, Ms. Woods additionally requested, “that the search includes . . . the district’s custody and parental- authority documentation from the prior academic year (2024–2025)” and also that the District waive “all search, review, and redaction fees associated” with her modified request. The District responded on October 31, 2025 and November 6, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s responses, Ms. Wood petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3335, was opened as a result. Subsequently, on November 12, 2025, the District provided a supplemental response, which Ms. Woods further appealed in an email on the same date. The District additionally provided additional information in an email to this office on November 24, 2025. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Woods’ status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. It is unclear if Ms. Woods may have a greater right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. The parties are encouraged to communicate to determine if there is another means affording Ms. Woods a greater right of access to the responsive records. 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. 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

Dr. Marc Smith SPR25/3335 Page 3 November 25, 2025 custodian must provide the responsive records. Fee Estimates – Municipalities 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. A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two (2) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The District’s October 31st, November 6th, and November 12th responses In its previous response to Ms. Woods’ October 28, 2025 request, the District provided a fee estimate of $560.00 to $840.00 and explained the following: Due to the nature of [the] request, the pending criminal case that is interwoven in some of the requested documents, the potential for disclosure of protected identifiable information for . . . individuals other than [an identified individual], and the current fact that DCF has legal custody of [an identified individual], the district will require its legal counsel to review and redact the records prior to providing them. We estimate between two and three hours of work by legal counsel to complete this work. Current counsel billing rate is $280/hour. Our current estimated fee is $560-$840. In its October 31, 2025 response to Ms. Woods’ modified October 30, 2025 request, a representative for the District denied Ms. Woods’ request for a fee waiver and asked her to, “[p]lease provide direction to the district on how [she] would like to proceed.”

Dr. Marc Smith SPR25/3335 Page 4 November 25, 2025 In its November 6, 2025 response, a District representative explained that, “[i]n [the District’s October 31, 2025] communication I noted that . . . the district was denying your request to waive . . . fees.” The District representative further noted, “the district is awaiting your direction as to whether you would still like us to proceed . . . with the previously provided estimated fees.” In its supplemental response on November 12, 2025, a District representative further explained that the records concern “both an on-going probate matter . . . and an on-going criminal investigation in which Ms. Woods is involved.” Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Mr. Woods states that the records, “directly concern a law- enforcement-initiated action on school grounds involving a minor and a state agency.” She further states that she is, “the parent of record . . . in the related court matter” and contends that she has “a direct and lawful need for these records[.]” Upon review of the file, Ms. Woods references Commonwealth v. Woods but does not provide any additional information regarding the matter(s). Pending Litigation 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b) provides in pertinent part: The Supervisor of Records may deny an appeal for, among other reasons if, in the opinion of the Supervisor: 1. the public records in question are the subjects of disputes in active litigation, administrative hearings or mediation. In correspondence with this office on November 24, 2025, the District advised that the records concern matters that are currently pending in Orleans District Court. This office has reviewed the trial court’s docket and verified that the criminal litigation, relating to the records that are the subject of Ms. Woods’ request, remains active and ongoing in Orleans District Court. See Commonwealth vs. Woods, Kelly (Orleans District Court Docket No. 2526CR000382); Commonwealth vs. Woods, Kelly (Orleans District Court Docket No. 2526CR000383). Additionally, in its November 24th correspondence and a telephone conversation with this office on the same date, the District confirmed that the records that are the subject of Ms. Woods’ request are the subject of a petition before Barnstable County Juvenile Court under the Docket Number 25CP0040OL, with a pre-trial conference scheduled for December 17, 2025. In light of the pending maters, I decline to opine on this matter at this time. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b). It should be noted that a change in the status of the above matters could impact the applicability of 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2)(b).

Dr. Marc Smith SPR25/3335 Page 5 November 25, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kelly Woods