DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260573)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 3, 2026 SPR26/0573 Kathleen Genther Records Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools 8 Bush Street Dartmouth, MA 02748 Dear Ms. Genther: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of 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 30, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested, “. . . the following existing records related to the ‘Academic Support’ class/service at Dartmouth High School”: Course Approval & Curriculum [1] Course proposals, descriptions, curriculum documents, or instructional outlines for Academic Support[;] [2] Records showing School Committee approval of Academic Support as a course (minutes, agendas, supporting documents)[;] [3] Internal course catalog entries or Aspen course codes associated with Academic Support[;] Program of Studies Documentation [4] All versions or drafts of the Dartmouth High School Program of Studies from 2020–2025 that include, reference, or describe Academic Support[;] [5] Internal communications, memos, or notes regarding the inclusion, exclusion, or description of Academic Support in the Program of Studies[;] Placement & Eligibility Criteria [6] Written criteria, guidelines, or procedures used to determine student placement into Academic Support[;] [7] Documents indicating whether Academic Support is restricted to students with IEPs[;] Special Education Service Documentation [8] Internal descriptions, guidelines, or policies describing Academic Support as a special education service, including staffing requirements and 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 Genther SPR26/0573 Page 2 March 3, 2026 service‑delivery expectations[;] [9] Documents outlining how Academic Support minutes are scheduled or delivered during the school day[;] Scheduling & Implementation [10] Documents describing how Academic Support is scheduled (e.g., class period, block, flexible service)[;] [11] Internal guidance on whether Academic Support is credit‑bearing, pass/fail, or appears on student transcripts[;] Historical Grading Method Records [12] Records showing the grading method for Academic Support for each school year from 2018–2025 (letter‑graded or pass/fail)[;] [13] Historical Aspen course catalog entries for Academic Support, including prior grading methods, credit values, and course codes[;] Classification & Coding [14] Records indicating whether Academic Support is classified as a course, support block, special education service, or another category[;] [15] Documents describing how Academic Support is coded for scheduling, reporting, or transcript purposes[;] Implementation History [16] Records showing when Academic Support was first implemented at Dartmouth High School, including the first year it appeared in the Aspen course catalog or master schedule[.] The School responded on February 13, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0573, 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 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

Kathleen Genther SPR26/0573 Page 3 March 3, 2026 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: 1. My request reasonably describes the records sought. My request identifies a single, discrete subject, the Academic Support class/service at Dartmouth High School and seeks specific, identifiable categories of existing records. . . . These are standard, routinely maintained school records. The request is limited in scope, limited in timeframe, and limited to existing documents. It does not require interpretation, legal analysis, or subjective judgment. 2. The RAO’s reliance on Chawla is misplaced. . . . 3. The RAO failed to comply with 950 CMR 32.06(2). Instead of assisting me in describing the records sought, the RAO: refused to search[,] refused to identify which portions were clear[,] refused to propose narrowing[,] [and] refused to identify custodians[.] 4. The RAO improperly issued a fee estimate while simultaneously denying the request. . . . 5. DPS must either produce the records or state that they do not exist. . . . The School’s February 13th Fee Estimate In its February 13, 2026 response, the School provided a total fee estimate of $200 and provides the following explanation: Please be advised that the Request lacks sufficient specificity to enable DPS to identify the requested items. . . . 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. The Request contains sixteen sub-parts, most of which request broad categories of records, with very particular qualifiers (e. g., records “associated with,” “regarding,” “indicating whether,” “describing,” “outlining,” and “showing” specific subjects) which would require DPS personnel to make subjective judgments regarding whether a particular record is sufficiently related to the

Kathleen Genther SPR26/0573 Page 4 March 3, 2026 subject matter(s) identified. The Request quite clearly falls short of the “reasonable description of the requested record(s)” required under 950 CMR 32.06(1)(b), and as such DPS has no obligation to respond to it. . . . Nor is the request sufficiently specific to enable DPS to reasonably identify the limits of records responsive to the Request’s apparent indefinite breadth. To the extent that the Request reasonably could be construed to require a response, in accordance with the above excerpts and other legal authority, DPS denies the Request as vague, ambiguous, unduly broad and unclear. If you intend to proceed with a clarified or modified public records request, DPS intends to require payment of the estimated fee(s) authorized by law before commencing work to respond to such potential prospective request. The overbroad and vague nature of the request, combined with the large time frame associated with multiple subparts of the Request (5-7 years in some instances) makes it difficult for DPS to predict the amount of time that would be required to conduct a thorough search to identify all responsive records. DPS conservatively estimates that it would take approximately 10 hours of employee time to conduct a good faith search for all records that may be responsive to the extremely broad search criteria included in the Request. In accordance with the law, DPS intends to charge for this time, excepting the first 2 hours, for a total of 8 hours. 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. This results in a total estimated fee of $200.00 for the Request. The amount of this fee may change based on any modification to the Request of based on the actual time required to perform the work described above. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). 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. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).

Kathleen Genther SPR26/0573 Page 5 March 3, 2026 With regard to Items 1, 4, 6, 11, and 13, Ms. DaSilva has provided descriptions of the categories of records she is seeking, including the specific subject matter and the specific types of documents she seeks. While her request may potentially result in a large volume of responsive records, she has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking for these Items of her request. This office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). However, with regard to the remaining Items of Ms. DaSilva’s request, consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language, “associated with,” “regarding,” “indicating whether,” “describing,” “outlining,” and “showing” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Ms. DaSilva may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records she is seeking. Once Ms. DaSilva has provided the needed clarification, the School must provide a response within 10 business days. 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 further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva