DaSilva, Ana v. Freetown-Lakeville Regional School District (SPR 20260686)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 11, 2026 SPR26/0686 Dr. Barbara Starkie Interim Superintendent of Schools Freetown Lakeville Regional School District 98 Howland Road Lakeville, MA 02347 Dear Dr. Starkie: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of the Freetown Lakeville Regional 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 February 12, 2026, Ms. DaSilva made the following request: I am requesting access to the following records related to [an identified individual’s] employment and separation from Apponequet Regional High School[:] [1] Records Reflecting the Reason for [an identified individual’s] Separation from Employment… Date range: August 1, 2024 – Present This includes:  resignation letters  non‑renewal notices  separation agreements  written notices of discipline  letters of concern or reprimand  HR communications documenting next steps  any final written communication provided to [an identified individual regarding his departure… [2] Communications Regarding [an identified individual’s] Conduct or Separation… Date range: August 1, 2024 – Present 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

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 2 March 11, 2026 Please provide emails, memos, or written communications between Apponequet/Lakeville administrators, HR personnel, or legal counsel referencing:  concerns about [an identified individual’s] conduct  decisions regarding discipline, non‑renewal, or separation  any incident involving communication with a Dartmouth High School student Please include emails, attachments, and metadata. [3] Communications Between Apponequet Regional High School and Dartmouth Public Schools Regarding [an identified individual]… Date range: August 1, 2024 – Present This includes:  employment verification  reference checks  notifications or concerns shared between districts  communications referencing [an identified individual’s] contact with a Dartmouth High School student [4] Policies in Effect During and After Fall 2024 Related to Staff Conduct and Student Interaction Specifically:  staff conduct policies  electronic communication policies  boundaries/appropriate interactions policies  mandatory reporting obligations  any guidance provided to staff regarding communication with students I am requesting only the policies themselves. [5] Records Reflecting Any Internal Investigation Conducted by Apponequet Administrators Regarding [an identified individual]… Date range: August 1, 2024 – Present This includes:  incident reports  complaints or allegations received  notes or summaries of staff interviews  timelines, findings, or conclusions  records indicating which staff were interviewed…

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 3 March 11, 2026 The District responded on February 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0686, 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). 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, 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 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 under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 4 March 11, 2026 The District’s February 27th Response In its February 27, 2026 response, the District provided 30 pages of responsive records and withheld seven pages of responsive records pursuant to Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. In addition, the District provided a fee estimate of $302.00 to produce an additional 845 pages of responsive electronic mail records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva argues that the District’s response is deficient for the following reasons: [1] Incomplete and Contradictory Search for Email Records [2] Improper Withholding of Separation-Related Personnel Records [3] Incorrect Claim That No Inter-District Communications Exist [4] Failure to Meet Obligations Under 950 CMR 32.06 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). First Clause – Personnel Information While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 386. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329 Or. 401

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 5 March 11, 2026 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Regarding the seven pages of responsive records withheld pursuant to Exemption (c), the District stated: These seven (7) pages of personnel records are withheld in the entirety in accordance with the M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, Clause 26(c)… identified with specificity as follows: [1] One (1) page application for employment related personnel record of a former District employee, dated June 25, 2024; [2] Six (6) pages of personnel records of and relating to a former District employee’s employment with and/or separation from employment with the District, dated/issued February 10, 2025, February 23, 2025, April 8, 2025, December 3, 2025.

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 6 March 11, 2026 These withheld records constitute confidential personnel records, falling squarely within the “core categories” of personnel records exempt from disclosure under exemption (c), as the District’s disclosure of these records in response to a public records request would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, thereby infringing upon the personal privacy rights of an individual… Applying the requisite balancing test, the specifically named individual’s interest in these privacy rights relative to these confidential, “core category” personnel records of an individual substantially outweighs the requestor’s and the public’s interest in disclosure, as the named individual is no longer employed by the District, and no longer has any role in or connection to the District, and the District has met its obligations, if any, relative to any appropriate and/or required action relating to the individual, if any. Based on the District’s response, where the seven withheld pages fall under one of the core categories of personnel information described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, I find the District may permissibly withhold the identified records under Exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s Ass’n, 431 Mass. at 798. In Colman M. Herman v. City of Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395, the Court in its June 20, 2024 Decision and Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Public Records Responses, found that “personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) . . .” Id. at 6. Where the District has met its burden to withhold these records under the personnel clause of Exemption (c), I decline to opine on the applicability of the privacy clause of Exemption (c) to the responsive records. The District’s Fee Estimate Within its February 27, 2026 response, the District also provided a fee estimate of $302.00 to produce an additional 845 pages of responsive electronic mail records. In support of its fee estimate the District provided the following information: …qualified District staff will be required to review / redact in accordance with applicable law the eight hundred and forty-five (845) pages of electronic mail records identified herein prior to making any production of any additional responsive records to you in response to this Request, should any exist, due to the nature of the careful review / redaction required by law prior to any disclosure of District email records, which is outlined with specificity herein. As such, the District requires the clearance of your payment in full of the following reasonable fee, calculated as a good faith fee estimate in accordance with public records law as set forth herein, prior to the District’s disclosure of any additional records responsive to your Request, should any exist. The District’s

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 7 March 11, 2026 good faith fee estimate, which is based on a good faith and well-targeted search crafted to reflect the search criteria set forth in your Request, and on conservative estimates, and is substantially less than the actual cost to the District to respond to your Request, is $302.00, as outlined with specificity below. The District does not anticipate any additional printing or copying fees associated with your Request. Prior to any disclosure of these records, District staff must review all eight hundred and forty-five (845) pages of electronic records that have been determined to be potentially responsive to your Request, in order to prevent any disclosure of any information which the District is legally obligated to maintain as confidential. Information that the District is obligated by law to maintain as confidential includes, but is not limited to: - any personally identifying student record information (exempt from disclosure under the M.G.L. c. 4, Section 7(26)(a) statutory exemption, relative to 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 99, the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and related regulations, and under 603 CMR 23.00, Massachusetts student records regulations), requiring redaction under applicable law; Further, District staff must review each of these records to avoid disclosure of any portions of records that may contain: - any confidential student or personnel information exempt from disclosure under the M.G.L. c. 4, Section 7(26)(c) privacy exemption, the disclosure of which would be in violation of an individual’s privacy rights; and/or - any confidential security related information, the disclosure of which would be exempt from disclosure under the M.G.L. c. 4, Section 7(26)(n) security exemption, the disclosure of which would compromise school security/safety; and/or - any confidential information relating to any ongoing investigation, exempt from disclosure under the exemption M.G.L. c. 4, Section 7(26)(f) investigatory exemption, the disclosure of which could compromise an ongoing investigation; and/or - any confidential information relating to pending litigation or records otherwise exempt under the doctrine of attorney-client privilege. The District very conservatively estimates that, on average, one (1) minute each per review/any required redaction of the approximately eight hundred and forty-

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 8 March 11, 2026 five (845) pages of potentially responsive electronic mail records will be required for qualified District staff to carefully review and redact these records as required and in accordance with applicable law, resulting in a calculation of 845 pages times one (1) minute each, totaling 845 minutes, divided by sixty (60) minutes per hour, requiring approximately 14.08 hours for the review/any redaction required. The lowest paid District staff person capable of performing this task earns greater than $25.00 per hour. Therefore, approximately 12.08 hours (required by applicable law as detailed herein), which excludes the first two (2) hours of time because the resident population of the Towns of Freetown and Lakeville, in aggregate, exceeds 20,000 residents, equaling 12.08 hours, multiplied by the maximum hourly rate of $25.00 per hour, resulting in a total good faith fee estimate of $302.00 for the District’s production of any additional records responsive to your Request, should any exist. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the District states that it will take 14.08 hours to review and redact the additional 845 pages of responsive records, it is unclear why the District requires this much time. In this case, the District estimates it will take one minute per page to review and redact the responsive records and stated that it is not assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the responsive records. The District has also confirmed that the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform these tasks is paid more than $25.00 per hour. However, pursuant to 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

Dr. Barbara Starkie SPR26/0686 Page 9 March 11, 2026 approved by the Supervisor of Records under 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). Accordingly, where no such petition has been approved, the District’s fee estimate may not include time spent for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law, which are not “required by law.” The District may, however, assess a fee to segregate and redact the responsive records under the applicable statutes it identified under Exemption (a), as well as under the attorney-client privilege, which is interpreted to be “required by law.” Accordingly, the District must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). For the reasons discussed above, I find the District must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $302.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). With regard to Ms. DaSilva’s objections regarding the District’s search and identification of all responsive records, please be advised that where the District has yet to produce the records subject to the fee estimate, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once the records are provided, Ms. DaSilva may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). This office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the District to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may wish to narrow 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the District 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 District’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva John Burke