DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261036)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 27, 2026 SPR26/1036 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 March 9, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested: …the ESSER I, ESSER II, and ESSER III expenditure reports submitted by Dartmouth Public Schools to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for FY2021 through FY2024. These reports should include, where they exist:  vendor name  description of expenditure  amount  date  account code or fall account string The School responded on March 10, 2026 and March 20, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1036, 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, § 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 SPR26/1036 Page 2 March 27, 2026 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 10th and March 20th Responses On March 10, 2026, the School acknowledged receipt of Ms. DaSilva’s request. On March 20, 2026, the School provided some responsive records and stated: …please note that in responding to any clarified request for records, DPS intends to withhold records that are exempt from the definition of “public record” under G.L. c. 4, § 7, or are otherwise exempt from production by law. At this time DPS cannot identify any statutory exemptions that may apply, however, in the event that we receive any forthcoming clarification sufficient to enable DPS to respond, DPS reserves its rights to do so. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva contends: The FR‑1 summary reports do not include:  vendor names  dates of expenditures  descriptions  transaction‑level detail  the internal ESSER ledger used to prepare the reports … DPS included boilerplate language reserving the right to withhold records but did not identify any exemption under G.L. c. 4, §7(26) or 950 CMR 32.04. A blanket reservation is not a lawful withholding.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1036 Page 3 March 27, 2026 Burden of specificity Under the Public Records Law, the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm’r, 419 Mass. 852, 857 (1995); Flatley, 419 Mass. at 511. The Department did not meet its burden of demonstrating how the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Based on the School’s response, it is unclear what exemption under the Public Records Law the School is claiming to withhold the requested records. It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold or redact a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv) (a written response must “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 is based…”); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3). Consequently, I find the School must identify an exemption and explain with specificity how the exemption applies to withhold the records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. DaSilva with a response to the request, 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 further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva