DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260232)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 5, 2026 SPR26/0232 Kate Genthner District Records Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools 8 Bush Street Dartmouth, MA 02748 Dear Ms. Genthner: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of the Dartmouth Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 7, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested the following: Because the Carnegie Learning purchase orders and invoices already provided by the district show installment payments and obligations scheduled through FY2030, and at least one purchase order references 2031, this request covers fiscal years 2023 through 2031, inclusive. Please provide the following records: 1. All records related to Carnegie Learning professional development, coaching, workshops, or onsite support, including but not limited to: [a list of key search terms] This includes onsite coaching, job‑embedded support, workshops, leadership walkthroughs, TNI/National Math Institute registrations, and any other Carnegie Learning related training. 2. All records related to travel for Carnegie Learning events, including: [a list of key search terms] credit card statements submitted for reimbursement 3. All emails, memos, or internal communications containing any of the following terms: “Carnegie,” “Mathia,” “pilot,” “adoption,” “contract,” “installment,” “TNI,” “National Institute,” “PD,” “coaching.” Please include communications sent or received by: [a list of approximately 11 named individuals] . . . 4. A list of all budget lines and full internal account codes used to pay for any 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

Kate Genthner SPR26/0232 Page 2 February 5, 2026 Carnegie Learning expenses. This must include the complete account string for each expenditure (fund, cost center, function, program, subject, object, and location), exactly as it appears in the district’s financial system. This includes, but is not limited to, expenditures for: curriculum software materials professional development coaching workshops travel any other Carnegie Learning related expenditures The School responded on January 21, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0232, 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. 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. 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).

Kate Genthner SPR26/0232 Page 3 February 5, 2026 Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) 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 her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva contends that “DPS has issued a fee estimate of $73,058.75 for Item 3 of my request and has refused to produce the records requested in Item 4. The district’s response is inconsistent with the Public Records Law, the Secretary’s regulations, and multiple determinations issued by your office.” She requests this office address the following points: - the adequacy of DPS’s search, - the reasonableness of the fee estimate, - the district’s refusal to produce the records requested in Item 4, and - whether any fee may be assessed given that the burden resulted from the custodian’s own search methodology. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand Ms. DaSilva objects only to the School’s responses to Items 3 and 4 of the request. The School’s January 21st Response In its January 21, 2026 response, the School explains that it has previously provided records responsive to Items 1 and 2 of the request, provides a fee estimate for records responsive to Item 3, and provides information concerning Item 4. Item 4: No Duty to Answer Questions Regarding Item 4 of the request, in its January 21st response, the School states the following: [T]he Public Records Law does not require DPS to answer questions or provide information other than records in response to a request. Notwithstanding this, and without waiving any of its rights under the Public Records Law, DPS hereby responds to this item of the Request as follows: 201.209.2430.0.0.071.500.1 and

Kate Genthner SPR26/0232 Page 4 February 5, 2026 201.835.2358.0.3.095.400.0 Please be advised that 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, under the Public Records Law, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). However, 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). In this case, where the School has provided the data requested by Ms. DaSilva, and has not duty to answer questions or create records in response to a Public Records request, I find the School has met its burden in responding to Item 4 of the request under the Public Records Law. Item 3: Fee Estimate In its January 21, 2026 response, the School provides a fee estimate totaling $73,058.75 for records responsive to Item 3 of the request. The School provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: To respond to this portion [Item 3] of the Request, DPS conducted searches of DPS email servers using the search terms and email users identified in the Request. It took DPS staff 4.25 hours to search for and identify emails responsive to the Request. DPS’s email search produced approximately 87,602 emails which are responsive to the Request. All emails identified as responsive will need to be reviewed before they can be provided to you to determine whether any redactions are required as authorized by the Public Records Law. To complete the process of reviewing, segregating, and redacting responsive records as necessary, and given the large volume of information potentially exempt from disclosure within the responsive emails, DPS will avail itself of fifteen (15) additional business days to produce the records sought, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Please note that a review of the approximately 87,602 emails identified as responsive to the Request indicates that redactions required by law will likely need to be made to certain information exempt from disclosure. Specifically, the emails are likely to contain personal identifying information of public school students. DPS is required by law to redact this information pursuant to Exemption (a) to the Public Records Law, MGL c. 4, § 7(26)(a), as well as the Federal Education Rights Privacy Act, M.G.L. Chapter 71 Section 34A to 34H, and 603 CMR 23.00 et. seq. The emails are also likely to contain personnel record information which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law. Finally, some emails likely contain communications

Kate Genthner SPR26/0232 Page 5 February 5, 2026 between DPS and its attorneys for the purpose of legal advice which has not been shared with the public which are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege and must be redacted. Each email will need to be reviewed to determine whether it contains any information exempt from disclosure, and any such information will need to be segregated and redacted prior to production. In accordance with M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(d), DPS will assess a reasonable fee for the production of responsive records. DPS’s fee estimate for the search, segregation, and redaction of records is detailed further below. . . . DPS provides the below fee estimate, which is calculated based on the following facts relevant to the Request: -the responsive records are not freely available for public inspection; -information in the responsive records must be redacted by law; -the lowest paid employees who possess the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records have hourly rates exceeding $25.00 per hour. Based on the above, DPS is authorized by law to assess a fee for production of the requested records; is authorized to include as part of the fee estimate an hourly fee of $25 per hour for time required to search for, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records; and is authorized to charge said hourly fee for all time, excepting the first two (2) hours. Based on DPS’s estimate of approximately 87,602 potentially responsive emails, and an estimate of approximately 2 minutes per email, given that many emails contain multiples pages, DPS provides an estimate of 2,920.1 hours of segregation and redaction time to comply with your request. 87,602 emails X 2 minutes per email = 175,204 minutes or 2,920.1 hours of segregation and redaction time When combined with the 4.25 hours of search time expended by DPS to search for and identify all records responsive to this portion of the Request, DPS provides a total estimate of 2,924.35 hours. After excluding the first two hours of employee time, 2,922.35 hours multiplied by $25 per hour yields a fee estimate of $73,058.75. The actual fee to produce the responsive emails may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary segregation and redaction process. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to

Kate Genthner SPR26/0232 Page 6 February 5, 2026 Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the School to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The School must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. 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 If outstanding issues remain after Ms. DaSilva and the School communicate further as described above, Ms. DaSilva may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kate Genthner SPR26/0232 Page 7 February 5, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva