Keegan, Meghan v. Sandwich, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260839)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR26/0839 Taylor White Town Clerk Sandwich Public Schools 33 Water Street Sandwich, MA 02563 Dear Ms. White: I have received the petition of Meghan Keegan appealing the response of the Sandwich 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 February 23, 2026, Ms. Keegan requested the following: [1] A copy of the email that was read aloud by [an identified individual], Principal of Forestdale School, during the Forestdale Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) meeting on Tuesday, October 21, 2025[;] [2] Any district, school, or administrative policies, procedures, or written guidelines that[:] [a] Govern whether and how emails from members of the public and by parents (if different) may be read aloud at school-based meetings or parent groups[;] [b] Govern how such communications are reviewed, screened, selected, or approved for distribution or public reading[;] [c] Address standards for content, including but not limited to discriminatory, biased, or otherwise inappropriate statements; [d] Address participation by members of the public who are not parents or guardians of students in the district[;] [e] Address participation by members of the public who are parents or guardians of students in the district[.] [3] Any written communications, internal guidance, or administrative decision- making documents related to the decision to read this particular email at the October 21, 2025 DEIB meeting[;] [4] Any prior examples, records, or documentation reflecting similar instances where emails or statements from members of the public were read aloud at school meetings or parent groups, including the criteria used to determine whether those communications would be shared[.] 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

Taylor White SPR26/0839 Page 2 March 23, 2026 The School responded on February 26, 2026, and also provided a subsequent response on March 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the responses, Ms. Keegan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0839, 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. The School’s February 26th and March 10th Responses In its February 26, 2026 response, the School stated, “[y]our Public Records Request was received by my office on, February 23, 2026. As the Records Access Officer (RAO) I am working with other town staff and officials to identify the documents contained within your request. Where fees will be assessed for this request, you will be provided with a fee estimate, prior to production of responsive records. Moreover, should any responsive records be withheld or redacted, you will be provided with an explanation of the basis(es) for redactions or withholdings. This initial response with fee estimate (if applicable) shall be provided within 10 business days of receipt of your request (not counting Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays), or by March 9, 2026.” In its March 10, 2026 response, the School cited Exemption (c), of the Public Records Law, to redact responsive records. In support of redacting the requested records, the School cited, “[t]he Privacy Exemption, as it relates to materials relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. MGL c. 4, § 7(26)(c).” Additionally, in its March 10th response, the School advised that “[n]o other records exist or were withheld in relation to the other items or explanations you requested.”

Taylor White SPR26/0839 Page 3 March 23, 2026 Current Appeal In correspondence included with her appeal petition, Ms. Keegan states, “I appeal the response provided by the Sandwich Town Clerk regarding a Public Records Request dated February 23, 2026 concerning records related to the Forestdale DEIB meeting of October 21, 2025. The custodian produced a single record but stated that no additional records exist. However, the response provides no explanation of the search conducted, including which custodians or systems were searched, or how the list of custodians or systems to search was determined. The record produced is itself a forwarded email among multiple administrators, which strongly suggests the existence of additional responsive records such as the original inbound email, earlier messages in the chain, or internal discussion regarding the decision to read the email at the meeting. In addition, the request sought: policies governing whether emails may be read aloud at school meetings, internal communications or decision-making records related to reading the email at the October 21, 2025 meeting, prior examples of similar situations.” Based on Ms. Keegan’s appeal petition, she does not appear to be appealing the School’s redactions under Exemption (c). Additional Records The School is advised that 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). Further, in accordance with the Public Records Law, custodians are expected to use their superior knowledge of the records in their custody to assist requestors in obtaining the desired information. See 950 C.M.R. 32.04(5). Based on Ms. Keegan appeal, it is unclear whether the School possesses additional records responsive to the request. If the School 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) (a written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). The School must clarify this matter. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Keegan with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten 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. Keegan may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Taylor White SPR26/0839 Page 4 March 23, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Meghan Keegan