Jason Alfred v. Attleboro, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20253710)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 16, 2026 SPR25/3710 David Sawyer Superintendent Attleboro Public Schools 100 Rathbun Willard Drive Attleboro, MA 02703 Dear Superintendent Sawyer: I have received the petition of Jason Alfred appealing the response of the Attleboro Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 17, 2025 and November 18, 2025, Mr. Alfred requested the following records: November 17, 2025: Request No. 1: Electronic copies of all email communications, attachments, and email Metadata (sender, recipient, date/time, subject line) from August 1, 2025 to present that contain any of the following terms in the to/from fields, subject line, or body [regarding] [identified individuals], “IEP” “Fall Literacy Screener” “literacy screener” Attendance error” “October 2 attendance” “Observation request” “classroom observation” “surveillance footage” “Rooms access” “Rooms app” “IEE” “Independent Educational Evaluation” “DESE” “complaint” November 18, 2025: Request No. 2: All internal communications (emails, texts, chats, messages, Teams, Google Chat, etc.) from November 17, 2025 from 6:00 p.m. through November 20, 2025 sent immediately after my speaking during public comment on November 17, 2025, including: • Immediate reactions • Notes or follow-up • Discussion of rule enforcement • Mentions of the gaveling • Any directions from district leadership 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 SPR25/3710 Page 2 January 16, 2026 Request No. 3: All communications, emails, messages, or written discussions referencing or anticipating my attendance at the November 17, 2025 School Committee meeting from November 10-20, 2025. Search terms should include: [identified individual] “Parent speaker” “He might show up” “If he attends” Request No. 4: All internal documents, communications, drafts, and preparatory materials related to the coordination, planning, briefing or talking points for the November 17, 2025 School Committee meeting from November 1-20, 2025. Request No. 5: All emails, text messages, internal chats, and written communications sent or received by [an identified] Superintendent, [identified] School Committee Chair. Any Attleboro School Committee Member, [identified] Special Education Director from November 10-20, 2025 containing the following keywords: “Public Comment” [identified individual] “Parent speaker” Request No. 6: All internal emails, text messages, Teams/Google Chat messages, or written communications sent or received by [an identified] Superintendent, School Committee [identified] Chair, Any Attleboro School Committee Member, [identified] Special Education Director from November 1-20, 2025 that reference or discuss the November 17, 2025 School Committee meeting. Request No. 7: Metadata only (to/from, date/time, subject line, sender, recipient, and Attachment filenames) for all communications between Attleboro Public Schools leadership and the following [identified] attorneys from MacAvoy, Joyce & Kowalski, P.C.: and the following district officials: [identified] Superintendent, School Committee . . . Chair, Any Attleboro School Committee Member, [identified] Special Education Director referencing or relating to the November 17, 2025 School Committee meeting. Request No. 8: Any available video or audio recordings from November 18, 2025: • 6:15 p.m. – 8:15 p.m. (meeting period) • 8:15 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. (post-meeting/hallway period) Covering: • Francis Zito Conference Room • The hallway immediately outside the Francis Zito Conference Room • The hallway leading toward the Special Education Department • The corridor leading to [an identified individual’s] office • Any camera capturing movement between the SEPAC room and that office area To capture: • Entrance/exit of SEPAC officers and district staff • The Co-Chair’s interruption of parent discussion • Any hallway conversations after 8:15 p.m. • Any staff or SEPAC members walking toward or engaging near [an identified individual’s] office

David Sawyer SPR25/3710 Page 3 January 16, 2026 • Any visible debrief or follow-up interactions Request No. 9: All internal SEPAC communications created on November 18-19, 2025 that reference: • The SEPAC meeting held on November 18, 2025 • Any parent comments or discussions occurring between 6:15 p.m. and 8:15 p.m. inside the Francis Zito Conference Room • The Co-Chair’s interruption of parent discussion during the 8:00-8:15 p.m. period • Any discussion, reaction, or reference to [an identified individual] • Any follow-up conversation occurring in the hallways after 8:15p.m. • Any report or communication made to [identified] Special Education Director after the meeting concluded Request No. 10: All communications between any SEPAC officer/committee member and the following [five identified individuals] district personnel from November 18-19, 2025: • Any Studley Elementary staff • Any Special Education Department employee Including: “SEPAC” “meeting tonight” “parent” “[identified individuals] Conference Room” “hallway” “8:00” “8:15” “share with district” “report back To [identified individual] “walked down the hall” “discussed after he left” “concerns raised” Request No. 11: All district-related text messages, including SMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Facebook Messenger, or any messaging platform from November 18, 2025 from 6:15 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. used by: • SEPAC Chair • SEPAC Co-Chair • All SEPAC committee members present • [an identified individual] • Any district staff who attended or were informed afterward Including: “SEPAC” [identified individual] “parent tonight” “8:00” “8:15” “Francis Zito” “hallway” “walk down to [identified individual]” “after he left” “parent concerns” “discussion table” “meeting tonight” Request No. 12: Copies of any and all documents pertaining to the November 18, 2025 SEPAC meeting. The School provided a response, including a fee estimate, on December 2, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Alfred petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3710, was opened as a result.

David Sawyer SPR25/3710 Page 4 January 16, 2026 Fee Estimates – Municipalities 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 of Records 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 of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Alfred stated, “[t]he District’s position that certain record categories ‘do not exist’ and/or are outside its control, despite the District’s evident involvement/ coordination and the reasonable expectation that responsive records would exist.” Mr. Alfred also contested the fee estimate and stated, “[u]nlawful or unsupported fee estimates not tied to specific work actually required.” The School’s December 2nd Response In its December 2, 2025 response, the School stated, “... the District does not have in its custody, control, or possession any documents responsive to the following: Request Nos. 3, 8, 11, 12. In regard to Request Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, records responsive to these requests are provided in the attached folder, See Attachment 1.” The District also stated, “Special Education Parent Advisory Councils (SEPACs), including the Attleboro SEPAC, are independently governed bodies with their own by-laws and officers. As independent entities separate from the District, the SEPAC’s internal communications and records are not maintained or controlled by the District.” The District also stated, “[t]o the extent that any of the responsive documents contain the home address, personal email address, and personal telephone number of any Attleboro Public School employees, they will be redacted in accordance with M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o).” The School cited the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), as it operates through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, and Exemption (c), as well as the attorney-

David Sawyer SPR25/3710 Page 5 January 16, 2026 client privilege to withhold and/or redact records responsive to Request Numbers 1 and 7. In its response, the School provided a fee estimate of $412.50 and in support, stated the following: ... the District has estimated that it would take 18.5 hours of employee time to search, segregate, and redact responsive records. In accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(m), this estimate of 18.5 hours of employee time at $25.00 per hour excluding the first two (2) hours of employee time, totaling $412.50 to redact the records responsive to this request. Please be advised that the actual final cost of producing these records might vary from this good faith estimate. The District will commence gathering and redacting documents responsive to your request upon receipt of this estimated fee. The District further stated, “[f]or clarity, while records regarding specifically-named students and attorney-client communications will be withheld in full, records referencing other students and parents of the District will be redacted to remove PII and parent-identifying information upon receipt of the estimated fee.” Although the School has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 18.50 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the School requires this amount of time to produce responsive records. The School must advise how much time it is allocating to search for, segregate or redact the records. Further, it is uncertain how many records there are, or the minutes that the School must spend per page for redactions. The School must further confirm that $25.00 is the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the requested records. As such, the School must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $412.50, is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). In light of the School’s response, I encourage Mr. Alfred and the School to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Alfred may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable time periods or factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). With regard to Mr. Alfred’s contention that “[t]he District’s position that certain record categories ‘do not exist’ and/or are outside its control, despite the District’s evident involvement/ coordination and the reasonable expectation that responsive records would exist[,]” I find the School must clarify whether there is an agency relationship between the School and the Special Education Parent Advisory Councils. Where a public entity contracts with a third party to fulfill

David Sawyer SPR25/3710 Page 6 January 16, 2026 its public duties, and the public entity exercises control over that third party, an agency relationship is created. See Fifty-one Hispanic Residents of Chelsea v. Sch. Comm. of Chelsea, 421 Mass. 598, 607 (1996) (while subject to control of a public entity as a principal for purposes of performing public duties, private university is a public agent). The School must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Alfred with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Mr. Alfred may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jason Alfred