DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260952)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 25, 2026 SPR26/0952 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 four requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 17, 2026, Ms. DaSilva made the following requests, which she has identified as follows: Request 1 I request all Dartmouth Public Schools financial records from FY18–FY26 reflecting any payments made to, reimbursed to, or made on behalf of [an identified individual], including but not limited to: • tuition • graduate coursework • doctoral program expenses • University of Massachusetts Lowell program fees • cohort or partnership program fees • professional development reimbursements • tuition reimbursement agreements • stipends or allowances for continuing education • travel, conference, lodging, or materials expenses • any other district-funded educational or professional development expenses Please include all supporting documentation, including invoices, receipts, purchase orders, reimbursement forms, approval forms, credit card or procurement card statements, vendor payment records, accounts payable records, and any internal communications transmitting or approving the expense… 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 SPR26/0952 Page 2 March 25, 2026 Request 5 I request all records withheld, redacted, or excluded from the Public Records Request titled “Records Concerning Tuition, Reimbursements, and Payments for [an identified individual],” including: • the specific records withheld • the legal basis for each withholding • any responsive records identified but not produced • any records determined to “not exist” • any internal communications regarding the search or withholding Please include all supporting documentation associated with any withheld or partially withheld records… Request 6 I request all records of district‑funded professional development, workshops, conferences, trainings, or coursework for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment, including registrations, invoices, approvals, and payments. Please provide all records of district‑funded professional development, workshops, conferences, trainings, or coursework for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment, including registrations, invoices, approvals, and payments. Please include all supporting documentation, including invoices, receipts, approval forms, reimbursement forms, vendor payment records, and any internal communications transmitting or approving the expense… Request 7 I request all emails, memos, or internal communications between district administrators, HR, finance, or school leadership regarding tuition reimbursement, PD funding, or degree‑related support for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment… Please include all supporting documentation, including attachments, approval forms, and any internal communications transmitting or approving the expense… The School responded on March 10, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0952, was opened as 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

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 3 March 25, 2026 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 2 (two) 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 of Records 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 of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The School’s March 10th Response In its March 10, 2026 response, the School responded in turn to each request as follows: Request 1 This request is duplicative and/or overlaps with both your January 30, 2026 request, and [Request 6], which was sent three minutes after this request. In its

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 4 March 25, 2026 February 13, 2026 response to your January 30, 2026 request, DPS provided all records in its possession which are responsive to your request for records… Your February 17, 2026, 12:55 p.m. request asks for the same records, but adds the additional category of “any other district-funded educational or professional development expenses.” Three minutes later, at 12:58 p.m. on February 17, 2026, you made a separate request for “all records of district-funded professional development, workshops, conferences, trainings, or coursework for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment, including registrations, invoices, approvals, and payments.” … Because [Request 6] subsumes [Request 1] entirely, and the records responsive to [Request 6] would also be responsive to [Request 1], DPS responds below to the broader [Request 6], which response should be considered to include [Request 1] as well. Request 5 DPS understands this request to refer to its February 13, 2026 response to your January 30, 2026 request... In preparing its response, DPS interpreted the January 30, 2026 request to be limited to records related to [an identified individual’s] enrollment in the University of Massachusetts Lowell doctoral program… Based on the wording of your request, DPS produced all responsive records in its possession which were related to the doctoral program identified by you. With respect to employment contracts, DPS produced the employment contract that was in effect during the time period [an identified individual] was enrolled in the doctoral program… DPS further responds to this request… by stating that it is not in possession of any records responsive to your request. DPS did not withhold any records from its February 13, 2026 response... DPS did redact information in the records it produced to you on February 13, 2026, and included an explanation for those redactions and their legal basis in the response. Request 6 As discussed above, this request… overlaps with and/or duplicates [Request 1]. DPS will need to review accounts payable records for each of the 9 fiscal years covered by the request, in order to locate purchase orders, reimbursement requests, and any associated registrations, invoices, approvals, payments, receipts, and internal communications, to the extent these records exist with respect to each payment or reimbursement by DPS. DPS will then need to print or save each responsive record. These records will include information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (o) and (c) to the Public Records Law. (Home addresses, personal email addresses, and home telephone numbers of a public employee are exempt pursuant to exemption (o), and bank account information of an individual, the disclosure of which would constitute and unwarranted invasion of personal

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 5 March 25, 2026 privacy, is exempt pursuant to exemption (c)). As a result, DPS will then need to review each document, and segregate and redact all exempt information. Based on a review of responsive records for one fiscal year, DPS estimates that it will take 4.5 hours for each fiscal year to perform the tasks described above prior to production of the responsive records. Based on the request’s scope of 9 fiscal years, DPS estimates that it will take 40.5 hours to search, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records. Request 7 DPS denies this request on the basis that it lacks sufficient specificity to enable DPS to identify the requested records, and does not “reasonably describe the public records sought,” as required… In a recent determination, the Supervisor of Records has found that another one of your requests, which similarly requested broad categories of records with qualifiers which would require DPS personnel to make subjective judgments as to whether a particular record was sufficiently related to the identified subject matter did not meet the statutory standard for a reasonable description of the records requested. See SPR 26/0573 (“with regard to the remaining Items of Ms. DaSilva’s request, consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language “associated with,” “regarding,” “indicating whether,” “describing,” “outlining” and “showing” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2)… The Supervisor’s determination in SPR26/0573 with respect to your request for records “regarding” a specific subject is equally applicable to this request, which seeks records “regarding tuition reimbursement. PD funding, or degree-related support.” In addition to the above responses, the School provided a fee estimate of $962.50 to produce the remaining records responsive to Requests 1 and 6 as described above. In support of its fee estimate, the School stated: In this case, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to segregate and redact the records requested has an hourly rate which exceeds $25 per hour. In accordance with 950 CMR 37.02(2)(m)(l), the Requester will not be charged for the first two (2) hours of those services and will only be charged at a rate of $25 per hour. You submitted eight (8) public records requests on February 17, 2026, many of which have subparts as detailed above. DPS has previously responded to three (3) of the requests, and in this response provides you with a response and fee estimate (where applicable) for the remaining five (5) requests. Because the requests are interrelated and were all submitted within a two-hour time period, DPS is treating the requests as one large request. The total estimated hours to respond to these requests is 40.5 hours, as described in the response to [Request 6] above.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 6 March 25, 2026 After subtracting the first two (2) hours, 38.5 hours remain to search, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records. At the rate of $25 per hour, the total fee estimate is $962.50… Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva argued: These four requests received no records, no search descriptions, no exemption citations, no timelines, and no fee estimates within the required timeframe, in violation of 950 CMR 32.06(2), 32.06(3), 32.06(5), and G.L. c. 66, §10… DPS’s March 10 letter improperly merged all… PRRs into a single request, asserted duplicative reasoning, referenced unrelated prior PRRs, denied records while simultaneously claiming it must conduct extensive searches, and issued a fee estimate without providing the required search descriptions or exemption explanations. No Duty to Create Records Regarding Request 5, 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). Given that the School has confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to Request 5, nor to Ms. DaSilva’s related January 30, 2026 request, and this office has no authority to compel the School to create records, I will consider this portion of Ms. DaSilva’s appeal resolved. G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) With regard to the School’s fee estimate to produce the records responsive to Requests 1 and 6, please be advised, G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under [G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)].” In this case, where the requests were submitted on February 17, 2026 and the School provided its fee estimate and response on March 10, 2026, it is unclear if the School’s response met all the requirements under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) to assess a fee for the requested records. Pursuant to the law, the written response must be not later than 10 business days after the initial receipt of the request for public records, made via first class or electronic mail and must:

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 7 March 25, 2026 (i) confirm receipt of the request; (ii) identify any public records or categories of public records sought that are not within the possession, custody, or control of the agency or municipality that the records access officer serves; (iii) identify the agency or municipality that may be in possession, custody or control of the public record sought, if known; (iv) 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, provided that nothing in the written response shall limit an agency’s or municipality’s ability to redact or withhold information in accordance with state or federal law; (v) identify any public records, categories of records, or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to produce, and provide a detailed statement describing why the magnitude or difficulty of the request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality and therefore requires additional time to produce the public records sought; (vi) identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records and for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein; (vii) 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably; (viii) include an itemized, good faith estimate of any fees that may be charged to produce the records; and (ix) include a statement informing the requestor of the right of appeal to the supervisor of records under subsection (a) of section 10A and the right to seek judicial review of an unfavorable decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court under subsection (c) of section 10A. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The School is advised, in order to assess a fee for the requested records, it must demonstrate it provided a timely response in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The School must clarify this matter.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 8 March 25, 2026 Reasonable Description of Records Sought Regarding Request 7, please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records 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 Jaideep Chawla v. Dept. of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). With regard to Request 7, this office encourages Ms. DaSailva and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may wish to narrow or clarify her 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. DaSilva with a response to the request(s), 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 School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0952 Page 9 March 25, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva