DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260977)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2026 SPR26/0977 Kate Genthner District 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 January 7, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested the following: Because the Carnegie Learning purchase orders and invoices already provided by the district show installment payments and obligations scheduled through FY2030, and at least one purchase order references 2031, this request covers fiscal years 2023 through 2031, inclusive. Please provide the following records: 1. All records related to Carnegie Learning professional development, coaching, workshops, or onsite support, including but not limited to: [a list of key search terms] This includes onsite coaching, job‑embedded support, workshops, leadership walkthroughs, TNI/National Math Institute registrations, and any other Carnegie Learning related training. 2. All records related to travel for Carnegie Learning events, including: [a list of key search terms] credit card statements submitted for reimbursement 3. All emails, memos, or internal communications containing any of the following terms: “Carnegie,” “Mathia,” “pilot,” “adoption,” “contract,” “installment,” “TNI,” “National Institute,” “PD,” “coaching.” Please include communications sent or received by: [a list of approximately 11 named individuals] . . . 4. A list of all budget lines and full internal account codes used to pay for any 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 SPR26/0977 Page 2 March 31, 2026 Carnegie Learning expenses. This must include the complete account string for each expenditure (fund, cost center, function, program, subject, object, and location), exactly as it appears in the district’s financial system. This includes, but is not limited to, expenditures for: curriculum software materials professional development coaching workshops travel any other Carnegie Learning related expenditures Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0232 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 5, 2026). In my February 5th determination, I found that the School had met its burden in responding to Item 4 of the request, and I encouraged the parties to communicate directly regarding Item 3 of the request in order to provide records more efficiently and affordably. Subsequently, the School responded on February 9, February 10, and March 4, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0977, 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.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0977 Page 3 March 31, 2026 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). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva argues the following: Following the Supervisor’s February 5 determination, I contacted the district on February 7, February 10, and February 26 requesting the information necessary to continue the narrowing process. The district responded to some items but did not provide the two remaining pieces of information required to proceed: - a breakdown of the 87,602 emails by year within the 7/1/22–1/8/26 date range, and - identification of duplicate emails or email‑thread groupings included in the count. Despite multiple follow‑ups, the district did not respond for more than two weeks. . . . On March 4, the district sent a new message but again did not provide the two items required to continue the narrowing process. Instead, the district repeated its request that I narrow the scope, without supplying the information necessary to determine how narrowing should occur. These two items remain outstanding, and I remain unable to move the narrowing process forward.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0977 Page 4 March 31, 2026 The School’s Responses In its February 9, 2026 response, the School provided Ms. DaSilva with details of the parameters used in its search. In its February 10, 2026 response, the School provided Ms. DaSilva with a breakdown of the numbers of responsive records listed by each search term. In its March 4, 2026 response, the School recommended the following: The District has since communicated with you in good faith as encouraged by the Supervisor, and provided you with additional information which you may use to narrow the scope of your request, which the Supervisor suggested you consider doing. Finally, the Supervisor directed the District to “suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request.” As detailed in prior correspondence, the District’s email search was performed using the specific criteria supplied by you in the Request (ie, the individual email users, the date range, and the keywords were all specifically identified by you). The District suggests that you may narrow your request to reduce the number of email users, reduce the number of keywords, and/or limit the date range. Any of these modifications to the Request would reduce the number of responsive records; the degree of the reduction is dependent upon the degree to which you narrow the request. Please advise if you would like to submit a modified request, and the District will respond accordingly. Please be 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). However, 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 its March 4th response, the School is seeking clarification regarding the scope of Ms. DaSilva’s request. Please be advised that it is valid for the custodian of records to 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.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii). Given the expansiveness of her request, Ms. DaSilva is encouraged to provide the School with the needed clarification regarding the records referenced in the School’s responses. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) (the request must reasonably describe the public records sought).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/0977 Page 5 March 31, 2026 Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. DaSilva and the School communicate further as described above, Ms. DaSilva may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva