Shea, Sheila v. Worcester, City of (SPR 20260523)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 26, 2026 SPR26/0523 Michael Manning Records Access Officer City of Worcester 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01609 Dear Mr. Manning: I have received the petition of Shelia F. Shea appealing the response of the City of Worcester (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66 § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 30, 2025, Ms. Shea requested the following for the period of October 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, relating to an identified individual’s work at Midland Street School: [1] Any records, schedules, memoranda, training materials, emails, or communications that reflect the assignment of mentorship, training, or supervisory responsibilities to [an identified individual][,] includ[ing], any records documenting mentorship or supervision of Assistant Principals (including [an identified individual])[;] [2] All electronic key-card, badge, or swipe access logs reflecting entry or exist activity by [an identified individual] at the entrance of Midland Street School during the requested period. If precise entry times or door locations are deemed exempt under any claimed “security” exemption, request production of the logs in redacted form rather than complete denial[;] [3] Any records reflecting whether [an identified individual] was working on-site at Midland Street School, assigned to another building, or working remotely during the requested period. This request includes any system-generated records reflecting login activity, such as VPN records, district login audits, or IP address logs that show her work location during that time. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of previous appeal. See SPR25/3034 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 29, 2025). In my October 29th determination, I ordered the City to clarify the applicability of Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to records responsive to 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

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 2 February 26, 2026 Item 1. Additionally, I ordered the City to clarify whether it possesses any records responsive to Items 2 and 3. The City responded on February 2, February 10, and February 11, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Shea petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0523, 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. See 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. See 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 City’s February 2nd, February 10th, and February 11th Responses In its February 2, 2026 response, the City stated: I write to provide you with a further response as required by the Supervisor of Records October 29th determination which was assigned case number SPR25/3034 by her office. With regards to items 2 (Building Access Records) and 3 (Work Location & Technology Records) of your request, I can confirm that no responsive records are in the possession custody or control of the City of Worcester or the Worcester Public Schools. Item 1 of your request remains under review. However, G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) provides that it is valid for the custodian of records to 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. In an effort to allow the City to produce records more efficiently, I would like to suggest a modification to the portion of your request that seeks "emails, or communications that reflect the assignment of mentorship, training, or supervisory responsibilities to [an

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 3 February 26, 2026 identified individual]." I would suggest that you provide key words or search terms to be used in conducting a search for responsive communications. It would also be helpful if you named specific employees from who you may have sent or received the communications in question. While I understand that with your original request you included a date range of October 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, it would be beneficial if you would consider narrowing that date range. Any combination of the aforementioned modifications would be extremely helpful as the City continues its search for responsive records. Thank you for your consideration. Please note that this communication does not represent the City's final response to your public records request or the Supervisor of Records' subsequent determination letter. In a February 3, 2026 email to the City, Ms. Shea stated the following: With respect to your suggestion, I would like to clarify the scope of Item 1 and in doing so, also clarify its relationship to Item 3, as the two are interconnected. The mentorship and supervision evidence sought are related to field-based administrative supervision provided by [an identified individual] for purposes of a candidate or candidates getting their administrator licensure through an apprenticeship/internship or mentorship pathway. As such, records reflecting the assignment, execution, and verification of that mentorship necessarily include records reflecting where and when such supervision occurred and how [an identified individual] allocated her time between mentorship duties and her broader supervisory responsibilities as a quadrant manager during the relevant time period. Accordingly, records responsive to Item 1 may include but are not limited to: [1] [R]ecords documenting the assignment of mentees or interns to [an identified individual] whether formally or informally; [2] [R]ecords reflecting supervision, training, or mentoring activities conducted by Ms. Kelley in furtherance of administrator licensure; [3] [S]chedules, calendars, (including outlook or similar electronic calendars), meeting invitations between the parties, or other contemporaneous records maintained by the district reflecting when and where such field-based mentorship or supervisory duties were performed; [4] [C]ommunications or materials maintained by the district and used to document or support the mentorship or internship experience These same records would, at least in part, also be responsive to item 3, as they reflect work location, on-site presence, and allocation of duties in connection with not only field-based supervision but also the course of [an identified individual’s]

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 4 February 26, 2026 regular administrative duties. For that reason, I respectfully request that Items 1 and 3 be considered together when assessing whether responsive records are within the City’s possession, custody, or control… With respect to your request to narrow the date range, I am unable to do so. The mentorship and supervision records sought include any candidate [an identified individual] mentored during this time frame for the specific purpose of getting admin licensure through the internship or mentorship pathway…That said, I am happy to clarify that the records sought are custodian-based records maintained in the ordinary course of [an identified individual’s] official duties… In its February 10, 2026 response, the City stated: Before continuing with a search for records responsive to your clarified request, I wish to seek additional clarification. . . . Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I would assert that the portions of your request that seek "records documenting the assignment of mentees or interns to [an identified individual] whether formally or informally" [;] "records reflecting supervision, training, or mentoring activities conducted by [an identified individual] in furtherance of administrator licensure" [;] "other contemporaneous records maintained by the district reflecting when and where such field-based mentorship or supervisory duties were performed" [;] "communications or materials maintained by the district and used to document or support the mentorship or internship experience." do not satisfy the statutory standard for a request to seek specific records or categories of records. You may wish to modify your request to reasonably describe the public records sought. With regards to the requests for communications, I have included an example of a request below that would allow the City to review for responsive records in most efficient and affordable manner possible: Emails that are: From/to: [specified email addresses] and contain the following Key words/search terms: appeal, petition, attorney, Supervisor of Records during the Date Range: from January 1, 2026 to present. It would be helpful if you could provide a similar combination of keywords, specific senders/recipients and date ranges for the portion of your request that seek communications. With regards to the portion of your request that seeks: "schedules, calendars, (including outlook or similar electronic calendars" please identify which specific

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 5 February 26, 2026 City of Worcester/Worcester Public Schools employees' electronic calendars you are seeking. Finally with regards to the portion of your request which seeks "meeting invitations between the parties", please identify who "the parties" are. In a February 10, 2026 email to the City and this office, Ms. Shea stated the following: For clarity of the record, my Feb 3rd, 2026 email was intended solely to assist the City in locating responsive records already in its possession…My use of “may include but are not limited to” in my February 3rd communication was illustrative and provided examples of record types that already fall within Item 1. It did not redefine or restrict the scope of the original September 30th request with remains unchanged…my correspondence on Feb 3rd stated I was simply “open to clarification that assists the City in locating responsive records” and offered to be “helpful in that regard.”…Please provide the City’s final response consistent with the Supervisor’s determination so I may review it accordingly. In its February 11, 2026 response, the City stated the following: For the reasons outlined in my February 10, 2026 and earlier February 2, 2026 responses, I assert that neither item 1 of your original request nor your February 3, 2026 clarification of that request identifies documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that the City will be able to understand exactly what you are looking for or provides the appropriate definitions or parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents. See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019); see also Friedman v. Division of Administrative Law Appeal --------------------------------------- and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3. In order for the City and Schools to produce the records that you are seeking, I would encourage you to provide the clarification requested in my February 10th response. This includes identifying specific categories of records that you seek and to the extent that you have done so providing the names of specific employees or search terms to enable the City to further search for responsive records. As noted in both of my responses, the City is willing to communicate further in order to …facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably and has used its superior knowledge of the records to suggest potential reasonable modifications to the request as required G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). You have indicated that you are unwilling to narrow or further define the records that you are seeking…

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 6 February 26, 2026 Current Appeal In her February 12, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. Shea objected to the City’s response, stating, “I respectfully request that the Supervisor of Records order the City to provide a response fully complaint with the Public Records Law and the October 29, 2025 determination…” Item 1 Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames Please be advised, 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 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.

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 7 February 26, 2026 In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). Modification of Request In the City’s February 2nd and February 10th responses, the City, pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii), suggested a modification of the scope of Ms. Shea’s request. Whereas the City has offered reasonable modifications of the scope of Ms. Shea’s September 30th request, I find the City has met its burden of responding to Ms. Shea’s request. This office encourages Ms. Shea and the City to continue to communicate directly to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Shea may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable factors to enable the search to be processed. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(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). Items 2 and 3 – No Duty to Create Records Please be advised, under the Public Records Law, a custodian is not required to create a record in response to a public records request. See G. L. c. 66, § 6A(d). In addition, a public employee is not required to answer questions, or do research, or create documents in response to questions. See 32 Op. Att’y Gen. 157, 165 (May 18, 1977). 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). Where the City confirmed in its February 2, 2026 response that it possesses no records responsive to Ms. Shea’s Item 2 and 3 requests and this office has no authority to compel the City to create such records, I will now consider this aspect of the administrative appeal closed. Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Shea and the City communicate further as described above, Ms. Shea may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Michael Manning SPR26/0523 Page 8 February 26, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sheila F. Shea