DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260858)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR26/0858 Kathleen Genthner Records Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools 8 Bush Street Dartmouth, MA 02748 Dear Ms. Genthner: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of the 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 February 11, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested the following: [1] Emails Sent or Received by [an identified individual] Containing the Keyword “Portugal”[;] Date range: March 1, 2024 – June 30, 2024 [s]earch parameters[:] keyword[:] Portugal, sender/recipient[:] [an identified individual][;] [2] Resignation Letters or Non‑Renewal Notices Submitted by Dartmouth High School Staff, Date range[:] April 1, 2024 – August 31, 2024[;] [3] Policies in Effect for International or Overnight School‑Sponsored Trips During Spring 2024, [s]pecifically[:] chaperone expectations, staff conduct policies, alcohol use policies, mandatory reporting obligations, any guidance or procedures provided to staff or administrators for international travel[;] [4] Communications Between Dartmouth Public Schools and Any Receiving District Regarding Employment Verification for [an identified individual], Date range[:] April 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024[;] [5] Records Reflecting Any Student Interviews, Conversations, or Fact‑Finding Conducted by Any Dartmouth High School Administrator Regarding Staff Conduct on the Portugal Trip, Date range[:] April 1, 2024 – June 30, 2024[.] 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 Genthner SPR26/0858 Page 2 March 23, 2026 Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0749 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 5, 2026). In my March 5th determination, I ordered the School to provide Ms. DaSilva with a response to her request. The School responded on March 5, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0858, 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 School’s March 5th Response In its March 5, 2026 response, the School assessed a fee of $85.00 and stated the following: [1] DPS has search its email servers to identify emails, attachments, and metadata responsive to Item #1 in the Request. Each record will need to be reviewed to determine whether it contains any information exempt from disclosure, and any information subject to redaction will need to be segregated and redacted prior to production. DPS expects that some of the responsive records will contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and/or (c) to the Public Records Law. Exemption (a) will apply to any personally identifiable student information contained within the records, the disclosure of which is prohibited under state and federal student records law. Exemption (c)… may apply to certain personnel information contained within the responsive records, and also private information contained within email correspondence with parents. In accordance with M. G. L. c. 66, §10(d), DPS will assess a reasonable fee for

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0858 Page 3 March 23, 2026 the production of responsive records. DPS’s fee estimate for the search, segregation, and redaction of records is detailed further below[;] [2] DPS hereby produces one record responsive to Item #2 in the Request[;] [3] DPS hereby produces the attached policies responsive to Item #3 in the Request[;] [4] DPS is not in possession of any records responsive to Item #4 in the Request[;] [5] DPS has identified records responsive to Item #5 in the Request. Each record will need to be reviewed to determine whether it contains any information exempt from disclosure, and any information subject to redaction will need to be segregated and redacted prior to production. DPS expects that some of the responsive records will contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and/or (c) to the Public Records Law. Exemption (a) will apply to any personally identifiable student information contained within the records, the disclosure of which is prohibited under state and federal student records law. Exemption (c)… may apply to certain personnel information contained within the responsive records, and also private information contained within email correspondence with parents. In accordance with M. G. L. c. 66, §10(d), DPS will assess a reasonable fee for the production of responsive records. DPS’s fee estimate for the search, segregation, and redaction of records is detailed further below. … DPS has identified 174 pages of records responsive to Items #1 and #5 of the Request. Based on an estimate of approximately 1 minutes per page, given that many emails contain multiples DPS provides an estimate of 2.9 hours of segregation and redaction time to comply with your request. 174 pages x 1 minutes per page = 174 minutes or 2.9 hours of segregation and redaction time[.] In addition to the above projection, DPS has already spent approximately 2.5 hours conducting searching for and compiling the responsive records. When added to the estimated segregation and redaction time, this results in a total of 5.4 hours. After excluding the first two hours of employee time, 3.4 hours multiplied by $25 per hour yields a fee estimate of $85.00… Current Appeal In her March 10, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. DaSilva states the following: For context, my January 15 request sought records related to the Dartmouth High

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0858 Page 4 March 23, 2026 school international trip to Portugal. Due to an error on my part, I listed the year as Spring 2025. On February 11, I submitted a corrected request identifying the trip as occurring in Spring 2024. The categories of records in both requests were identical. DPS denied the January request in full, stating that no responsive records existed. However, in response to the corrected-year request, DPS identified 174 pages of responsive material across the same categories. This sequence appears relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the January search and the accuracy of the School’s earlier representations. [1] The January (SPR26/0314) request contained a date error, but the categories were accurate[;] [a] My January 15 request reference the Portugal trop as occurring in Spring 2025, but I later realized that I had entered the year in error and that the trip occurred in Spring 2024[;] [b] All other aspects of the request were accurate…[;] [c] Only the year was incorrect[;] [2] DPS stated that no responsive records existed, but later acknowledged extensive responsive material[;] [a] …These are the same categories of records DPS previously stated did not exist. The only difference between the two requests was the year.[;] [3] DPS’s March 5 production indicates that the January search was not reasonable[;] [a] DPS has now acknowledged the existence of [records][;] [b] This appears inconsistent with the January 29 statement that no responsive records existed[;] [c] In January, DPS stated that no responsive records existed and did not produce any records. The March 5 response, however, identified 174 pages of responsive material across the same categories. This contrast appears relevant to assessing the adequacy of the January search and the accuracy of the School’s earlier representations[;] [4] The February 11 determination was based on incomplete or inaccurate information[;] [a] Your office closed SPR26/0314 because DPS represented that no responsive records existed[;] [b] DPS’s March 5 response demonstrates that this representation was not accurate. Had the existence of these records been known at the time, the outcome of the determination may have been different… [5] Requested Relief [a] Ensure that DPS provides a category-specific response to the January 15 request[;] [b] Ensure that DPS provides a description of the search conducted in January[;] [c] Ask DPS to produce any non-exempt records responsive to the January request[;] [d] Ask DPS to identify any exemptions applied to withheld material[;]

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0858 Page 5 March 23, 2026 [e] Confirm that no fees may be assess in connection with correcting the January response. Based on the forgoing, Ms. DaSilva does not appear to object to the School’s fee estimate for her February 11, 2026 request. No Duty to Create Records; No Duty to Answer Questions 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). Further, 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). Issue Previously Addressed Ms. DaSilva is advised that to the extent she is seeking assistance related to the January 15, 2026 request at issue in SPR26/0314, such issues were previously addressed in my February 11th determination. See SPR26/0314 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 11, 2026) (finding the School had no records responsive to Ms. DaSilva’s request). Consequently, I am unable to issue a second determination at this time. Conclusion Given that the School has confirmed that it does not possess any records related to Ms. DaSilva’s January 11th request, and this office has no authority to compel the School to create records, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. DaSilva is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva