Pacy, Michael v. Shrewsbury, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260707)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 16, 2026 SPR26/0707 Chris Girardi Records Access Officer Shrewsbury Public School District 100 Maple Avenue Shrewsbury, MA 01545 Dear Mr. Girardi: I have received the petition of Michael Pacy appealing the response of the Shrewsbury Public 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 October 14, 2025, Mr. Pacy requested the following: . . . I am seeking work-related internal communications within the Shrewsbury School District for the time from October 23, 2023, to February 16, 2024. Scope of Request[.] This request specifically pertains to communications solely between the following Shrewsbury School District employees (any combination thereof): [1] [An identified] Principal . . .[;] [2] [Two identified] Assistant [Principals] . . .[;] [3] [An identified] Athletic Director . . .[;] [4] [An identified] . . . former Girls Varsity Soccer Coach at Shrewsbury High School . . .[;] [5] [An identified] Superintendent . . .[.] . . . Requested Topics[.] The internal communications should relate to the following subjects or keywords: [1] Girls Varsity Soccer Coach[;] [2] Email chain with subject: Re: Following Up[;] [3] Email with subject: Re: file a complaint school employee[;] [4] Email with subject: Re: Request Meeting[;] [5] Email with subject: 1/24/24 re: Bullying[;] [6] Email with subject: Soccer Coach Resignation[;] [7] Bullying Investigation Report dated 1/20/24 regarding [an identified 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

Chris Girardi SPR26/0707 Page 2 March 16, 2026 individual][;] [8] Bullying allegations[;] [9] January 5, 2024 communication between [two identified individuals] . . .[;] [10] January 5, 2024 email from [an identified individual] regarding team captains[;] [11] Harassment or retaliation[;] [12] Girls Varsity Soccer team[;] [13] [Two identified individuals]. . .[.] . . . Types of Communication Requested[.] I am requesting all available forms of communication related to the above individuals and topics, including but not limited to: Emails . . .[,] Text messages[,] Phone call logs or voicemails[,] Meeting notes or minutes[,] Any data on iCloud servers[,] [and] Any other form of documented communication[.] . . . Please exclude any records that include non- district employees . . . in the To:, From:, CC:, or BCC: fields of the email. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3714 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 30, 2025). In my December 30th determination, I found that where Mr. Pacy had paid the fee to receive records responsive to his request, it was unclear why the District had not provided the records. Subsequently, the District responded on February 9, 2026, providing numerous responsive records. Unsatisfied with the District’s response and claiming the District possesses additional records, Mr. Pacy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0707, 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.

Chris Girardi SPR26/0707 Page 3 March 16, 2026 The District’s February 9th Response In its February 9, 2026 response, the District provided numerous responsive records through a Google Drive folder containing approximately 15 files, and additionally provided the following information: The [provided] folder . . . contains all responsive internal communications (Emails (from both school-issued and personal accounts, if used for district- related communication), Text messages, Phone call logs or voicemails, Meeting notes or minutes, Any data on iCloud servers, Any other form of documented communication) related to the subject or keywords listed above between the time period of October 23, 2023, to February 16, 2024. These internal communications specifically pertain solely between the . . . Shrewsbury School District employees (any combination thereof) [identified in Mr. Pacy’s request][.] . . . Please note all files were reviewed by the district’s legal counsel and all necessary redactions related to student confidentiality and personnel records are included in the response. . . . We believe these records are responsive to your request. Current Appeal In his March 4, 2026 petition to this office, Mr. Pacy contends the District possesses additional responsive records and provides the following information in support of his position: After an initial review of the records provided by the Shrewsbury School District on February 9, 2026, there are multiple responsive public records that are missing. . . . One specific and significant set of missing public records regarding my request on 10/14/25 involves communications between [an identified] Superintendent . . . and . . . [an identified former] Shrewsbury High School Girls Varsity Soccer Coach. . . . Mr. Pacy goes on to describe a specific “email chain [that] was not produced and provided to [him],” which he notes contained correspondence between two of the individuals identified in his request. He explains that these “emails occurred on the following dates and times and were sent using [identified] district email accounts: November 15, 2023 at 12:38 PM . . .[,] November 15, 2023 at 1:06 PM . . .[,] November 28, 2023 at 4:10 PM . . .[,] November 28, 2023 at 4:37 PM . . . [and] November 28, 2023 at 5:09 PM. . . .” Mr. Pacy additionally states that his “request specifically sought phone call logs and voicemails” while noting that, “[n]ot a single phone log or voicemail record was provided in the response on February 9, 2026.” He claims, “[g]iven that district employees work across multiple campuses and that the date range spans nearly four months, it is not credible that no phone call logs or voicemails exist.”

Chris Girardi SPR26/0707 Page 4 March 16, 2026 Additional Records Based on the information provided in Mr. Pacy’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the District possesses additional responsive records. Specifically, it is unclear if the District possesses additional records responsive to the November 2023 email chain described above, as well as “phone call logs and voicemails[.]” If the District does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv). 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). The District must clarify this. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Pacy with a response to his 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. Mr. Pacy may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Pacy Etty Singer, Esq.