← Back to Search
DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260976)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 03-18-2026
ClosedAppeal
SPR 20260976 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by DaSilva, Ana concerning records held by Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools, opened 03-18-2026. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20260976
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- DaSilva, Ana
- Custodian
- Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools
- Date Opened
- 03-18-2026
- Date Closed
- 03-23-2026
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 23, 2026 SPR26/0976 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/DPS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 19, 2025, Ms. DaSilva requested “all records related to any travel, lodging, meals, conferences, or professional development attended by Dartmouth Public Schools staff in connection with Carnegie Learning. Please include:” [1] Travel approval forms or permission forms[;] [2] Any ethics disclosures, conflict‑of‑interest forms, or gift/gratuity forms[;] [3] Emails or memos discussing travel arrangements, costs, reimbursements, or logistics[;] [4] Itineraries, agendas, schedules, or event materials[;] [5] Any invoices, receipts, reimbursements, or records showing how the travel or participation was paid for[;] [6] Internal district communications about the purpose of the trip, who attended, or how it was approved[;] [7] A list of staff who attended any Carnegie Learning events, whether in‑state or out‑of‑state[.] Previous Appeal The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0350 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 12, 2026). In my February 12th determination, I ordered the School to clarify if additional records responsive to Ms. DaSilva’s request exist. The School responded on March 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0976, was opened as a result. 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 SPR26/0976 Page 2 March 23, 2026 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 March 6th Response On March 6, 2026, the School stated: DPS is not in possession of any additional responsive records. DPS has produced all records in its possession responsive to the Request. DPS’s December 23, 2025 response specifically identified the categories of records for which DPS possesses responsive records (Items# l, 3. 5. and 6). [A]nd specifically identified the categories of records for which DPS does not possess any responsive records (Items# 2, 4, and 7). DPS did not identify any exemptions that apply because DPS did not withhold any responsive records. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva contends: In my December 8, 2025 PRR (SPR26/0120), DPS stated that it did not possess any internal documents, analyses, or records related to teacher training, professional development, coaching, implementation support, or travel connected to Carnegie Learning (Items 4–6). However, the records DPS produced in this appeal (SPR26/0350) directly contradict those earlier statements. The emails, itineraries, reimbursement Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0976 Page 3 March 23, 2026 packets, and vendor‑coordinated travel arrangements confirm that such records do exist. This inconsistency raises concerns about the adequacy of DPS’s searches and the accuracy of its representations across PRRs. No Duty to Create Records 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). Under the Public Records Law, 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). 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). In a telephone call between a Public Records Division staff member and a representative of the School on March 23, 2026, the School confirmed that all responsive records have been provided. Where the School has confirmed that all responsive records have been provided, I find that Ms. DaSilva’s appeal regarding this matter is resolved. Conclusion Where the School confirmed that it does not possess additional records responsive to Ms. DaSilva’s request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, 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