Michael Pacy v. Shrewsbury, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253714)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 30, 2025 SPR25/3714 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 October 14, 2025, Mr. Pacy requested the following: . . . I am seeking work-related internal communications within the Shrewsbury School District for the time from October 23, 2023, to February 16, 2024. Scope of Request[.] This request specifically pertains to communications solely between the following Shrewsbury School District employees (any combination thereof): [1] [An identified] Principal . . .[;] [2] [Two identified] Assistant [Principals] . . .[;] [3] [An identified] Athletic Director . . .[;] [4] [An identified] . . . former Girls Varsity Soccer Coach at Shrewsbury High School . . .[;] [5] [An identified] Superintendent . . .[.] . . . Requested Topics[.] The internal communications should relate to the following subjects or keywords: [1] Girls Varsity Soccer Coach[;] [2] Email chain with subject: Re: Following Up[;] [3] Email with subject: Re: file a complaint school employee[;] [4] Email with subject: Re: Request Meeting[;] [5] Email with subject: 1/24/24 re: Bullying[;] [6] Email with subject: Soccer Coach Resignation[;] [7] Bullying Investigation Report dated 1/20/24 regarding [an identified 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 SPR25/3714 Page 2 December 30, 2025 individual][;] [8] Bullying allegations[;] [9] January 5, 2024 communication between [two identified individuals] . . .[;] [10] January 5, 2024 email from [an identified individual] regarding team captains[;] [11] Harassment or retaliation[;] [12] Girls Varsity Soccer team[;] [13] [Two identified individuals]. . .[.] . . . Types of Communication Requested[.] I am requesting all available forms of communication related to the above individuals and topics, including but not limited to: Emails . . .[,] Text messages[,] Phone call logs or voicemails[,] Meeting notes or minutes[,] Any data on iCloud servers[,] [and] Any other form of documented communication[.] . . . Please exclude any records that include non- district employees . . . in the To:, From:, CC:, or BCC: fields of the email. The District responded on October 28, 2025 and October 30, 2025. Unsatisfied with the District’s responses, Mr. Pacy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3714, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, the District provided a supplemental response to Mr. Pacy and this office in an email dated December 19, 2025. 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. 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 October 28th, October 30th and December 19th Responses In its October 28, 2025 response, the District provided a fee estimate of $125.00 for the production of records responsive to Mr. Pacy’s request and advised, “[w]ith regard to [the]

Chris Girardi SPR25/3714 Page 3 December 30, 2025 request, a search of the requested areas for public record has yielded 148 potentially responsive records with an estimated 210 pages of communications.” The District further noted that it would, “not begin to review the records [Mr. Pacy] [seeks] until it receives a check in the amount of $125.00.” In its October 30, 2025 response, the District confirmed that it received payment of the above $125.00 fee estimate “on Wednesday, October 29, 2025[.]” and specified that Mr. Pacy would receive a response to his request “in a timely manner. . .” In its December 19, 2025 supplemental response, the District provided the following information regarding the status of its production of the responsive records: . . . the District has been working to process the [request]; however, fulfillment has taken longer than anticipated due to several factors. First, the requests requires the identification, collection, and review of a significant number of documents. Second, each record must be carefully reviewed to determine whether any exemptions under the Massachusetts Public Records Law apply. . . . This review process is necessarily time-intensive to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to avoid the inadvertent disclosure of protected information. In addition, during this same period, the District has received and has been processing numerous public records requests submitted by the requesters. The cumulative volume of these requests has contributed to a backlog and has affected overall processing timelines. These delays were not intended to deny or obstruct access to public records. . . . The District acknowledges the delay and understands the requester’s concerns. Shrewsbury Public Schools remains committed to fulfilling the requests as expeditiously as possible and intends to provide the responsive records as soon as possible, once review is completed. Current Appeal In his December 17, 2025 petition to this office, Mr. Pacy explains that he “[seeks] . . . assistance regarding a Public Records request [he] submitted on October 14, 2025, and paid a processing fee of $125.00 on October 29, 2025, for segregation and redaction of records.” Mr. Pacy additionally states that as of the date of submitting the current appeal, he has “yet to receive any responsive records” and notes, “[i]t has now been over two months since my original request and 44 business days. . . .” G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) provides that: A records access officer appointed pursuant to section 6A, or a designee, shall at reasonable times and without unreasonable delay permit inspection or furnish a copy of any public record . . . or any segregable portion of a public record, not

Chris Girardi SPR25/3714 Page 4 December 30, 2025 later than 10 business days following the receipt of the request, provided that . . . (i) the request reasonably describes the public record sought; (ii) the public record is within the possession, custody or control of the agency or municipality that the records access officer serves; and (iii) the records access officer receives payment of a reasonable fee as set forth in subsection (d). G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(iii) (emphasis added). Where Mr. Pacy has paid the fee to receive records responsive to his request, it is unclear why the District has not provided the responsive records. 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). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). To the extent possible, the District must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Pacy with a response to the 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. Mr. Pacy may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Pacy