DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260245)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 10, 2026 SPR26/0245 Kathleen Genthner Records Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools Office of the Superintendent 8 Bush Street Dartmouth. MA 02749 Dear Ms. Genthner: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of the Dartmouth Public Schools (School/DPS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested, “... copies of all existing record related to curriculum purchases made by Dartmouth Public Schools for FY22, FY23, FY24, FY25, and FY26 [including] ... any existing records such as: Contracts[,] Purchase Orders[,] Invoices[,] Quotes[,] Digital Licenses[,] Textbooks or student editions[,] Teacher editions[,] Supplemental materials[,] Professional development tied to curriculum purchases[.]” The School provided a response on January 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0245, was opened as a result. 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, 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

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0245 Page 2 February 10, 2026 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, Ms. DaSilva stated, “DPS used inconsistent and arbitrary time estimates to inflate fees. DPS estimated 3 minutes per purchase record for this request, resulting in a fee estimate of 55.15 hours of labor. However, in a separate public records request I submitted recently, DPS estimated 2 minutes per email for a much more complex search involving tens of thousands of emails... DPS is applying time estimates arbitrarily and inflating fees rather than conducting a good‑faith calculation as required under G.L. c. 66, § 10 and 950 CMR 32.07. The School’s January 23rd Response In its January 23, 2026 response, the School provided a fee estimate of $1,428.75. In support of the fee estimate the School stated, DPS conservatively estimates that it will take 3 minutes per purchase to perform the work described above, which results in a total of 3,309 minutes or 55.15 hours. DPS has already spent 4 hours identifying the 1,107 purchases noted above, resulting in a total estimate of 59.15 hours to respond to this portion of the Request. In accordance with the law, DPS intends to charge for this time, excepting the first 2 hours, for a total of 57.15. Because the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee capable of performing the work described above exceeds $25/hour. DPS intends to charge $25/hour for the time. ... In responding to any clarified request for records, DPS intends to withhold records that are exempt from the definition of “public record” under G.L. c. 4, § 7, or are otherwise exempt from production by law ... some responsive records will be withheld based on one or more of the exemptions set forth under G.L. c. 4, § 7(26). For example, the Request seeks “Digital licenses,” “Textbooks or student editions,” . . . “Teacher editions,” “Supplemental materials,” and “professional development tied to curriculum purchases.” All of these categories of records would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and/or (l) to the Public Records Law, and would be withheld. Exemption (a) ... [s]pecifically, federal copyright law (US Code, Title 17) prohibits the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works which applies to each of the categories of records noted above ...

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0245 Page 3 February 10, 2026 Although the School has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 57.15 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the School requires this many hours to produce the responsive records. Specifically, the School states that it “. . . will take 3 minutes per purchase to perform the work described above[.]” However, it is not clear what work the School needs to do or the tasks involved in producing the requested records. Also, the School must clarify why 3 minutes per purchase is necessary, and confirm the number of documents per each purchase. 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 to be reasonable). Additionally, the School appears to be assessing a fee for redactions made under Exemption (l) of the Public Records Law. Under the Public Records Law, a fee may 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 pursuant to a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the School must clarify if the fee assessed includes time necessary to redact records under Exemption (l) of the Public Records Law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $1,428.75 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The School further states the following: On its face, the Request is unduly broad and vague, lacks specificity sufficient to enable DPS to identify and compile potentially responsive items and represents precisely the sort of unreasonable description that the court rejected in Chawla. Where the Request seeks “all existing records related to” curriculum purchases for a five-year period, and then goes on to give examples of categories of records which apparently include not only purchasing records, but the materials purchased themselves, and additional records “tied to” the purchases, the Request quite clearly falls short of the “reasonable description of the requested record(s)” required under 950 CMR 32.06(1)(b) ... In light of the School’s response, I encourage Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may wish to clarify her request, 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).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0245 Page 4 February 10, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. DaSilva 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. Ms. DaSilva 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: Ana DaSilva