DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260897)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/0897 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 2, 2026, Ms. DaSilva sought the following: I am requesting . . . records related to any curriculum adoption that Dartmouth Public Schools identifies as having been conducted in accordance with School Committee Policy IGD. . . . For whichever curriculum adoption(s) the district considers IGD‑compliant, please provide the following . . . records: [1] School Committee agendas, minutes, and votes documenting the adoption[;] [2] Any presentations, reports, or materials provided to the School Committee[;] [3] Curriculum review committee records, including membership lists, meeting notes, evaluation tools, and recommendations[;] [4] Any teacher feedback or input collected as part of the process[;] [5] Any internal communications referencing Policy IGD in relation to that adoption. The School responded on February 2, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0897, 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 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 SPR26/0897 Page 2 March 27, 2026 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 2nd Response In its February 2, 2026 response, the School stated that Ms. DaSilva’s request “lacks sufficient specificity to enable [the School] to identify the requested items.” In support of its position, the School cited Jaideep Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. 1784CV02087 (January 23, 2019), and further explained the following: On its face, the Request is unclear, lacks specificity sufficient to enable DPS to identify and compile potentially responsive items, and would require non-lawyer administrative personnel to make legal judgments of the type that the court rejected in Chawla. The Request asks for records associated with “curriculum adoptions(s) the district considers IGO-compliant.” The Public Records Law requires DPS to produce records which have been sufficiently identified by a requestor – it does not require DPS to make legal determinations regarding whether a particular action was taken in compliance with School Committee policy. . . . 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. As part of its response, the School also provided a link to a page of the School’s website and noted, “[a]ll meeting minutes and agendas for School Committee meetings dating back to 2017 are available for public review and inspection on the DPS website[.]” Additionally, the School advised the following: DPS suggests that you review these agendas and minutes and modify the Request to be limited to records associated with specific meetings. This would enable you to determine on your own whether you believe there has been compliance with the School Committee policy in question, a determination which DPS is not required to make for you in response to a Public Records Request. If you intend to

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0897 Page 3 March 27, 2026 proceed with a clarified or modified public records request, DPS will respond to said request in accordance with the law. Current Appeal In her March 13, 2026 appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva contends that her request “satisfies the [‘]reasonable description[’] requirement under G.L. c. 66, §10(a)(i) and 950 CMR 32.06(1)(b).” In support of her claim, she states that her request “does not require DPS to interpret broad concepts or make subjective judgments” but “simply asks for records associated with whichever curriculum adoption(s) DPS itself considers to have been conducted under Policy IGD.” Ms. DaSilva additionally objects to the portion of the School’s response in which it provided a link to a page of the School’s website where she could access “[a]ll meeting minutes and agendas for School Committee meetings dating back to 2017[.]” Ms. DaSilva explains that the provided link allows for “[reviewing] School Committee agendas and minutes” but “does not contain . . . curriculum review committee records, teacher feedback, internal communications, or presentations and materials provided to the Committee.” Here, she states, “[d]irecting a requester to a website does not satisfy the Public Records Law unless the posted records fully satisfy the request, which is not the case here.” Reasonable Description of Records Sought; Records Available on a Public Website 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). 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 Chawla, at 2. 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). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “records related to any curriculum adoption . . . in accordance with School Committee Policy IGD. . .” 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 she has provided the needed clarification, the School must provide a response within 10 business days.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0897 Page 4 March 27, 2026 This office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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). Furthermore, it is permissible for the custodian of records to provide access to records via a link to a website. See G. L. c. 66, §6A(d) (“If the public record requested is available on a public website ... the records access officer may furnish the public record by providing reasonable assistance in locating the requested record on the public website.”); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.04 (5)(e) (“A records access officer shall ... to the extent feasible, furnish the public records by providing reasonable assistance in locating the records on an appropriately indexed and searchable public website”); 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (2)(a) (“A records access officer shall inform a requester of the availability of records online to avoid delays and fees associated with the provision of public records”). In this case, the School has provided a link to “[a]ll meeting minutes and agendas for School Committee meetings dating back to 2017[,]” as located on the School’s website. Consequently, based on the School’s response, and the information provided in Ms. DaSilva’s appeal petition, I find that the School has met its burden in responding to this request. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. 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). Please also note, if Ms. DaSilva wishes to submit a public records request to the School specifically describing the records she seeks, and is unsatisfied with the response, she may appeal that response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva