Faraclas, Elias v. Wachusett Regional School District (SPR 20261101)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 1, 2026 SPR26/1101 Barry Sclar Records Access Officer Wachusett Regional School District 1745 Main Street Jefferson, MA 01522 Dear Mr. Sclar: I have received the petition of Elias Faraclas appealing the response of the Wachusett Regional School District (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 12, 2026, Dr. Faraclas requested: …all internal communications, documents, and records regarding my son, his educational programming, and instruction. This includes any administrative decisions or discussions concerning his academic placement, curriculum delivery, and student support services. Please provide copies of the following: [1] Custodians to be Searched: Please search the email accounts, digital workspaces, internal messaging systems (e.g., Google Chat, Microsoft Teams), and district-issued devices (as well as any personal devices used for district business) of [six identified individuals]: [2] Search Terms & Responsive Topics: Please produce all records that contain [two identified names], as well as any records concerning his educational placement, student status, or the active Problem Resolution System (PRS) complaint. Specifically, this request includes all internal communications discussing:  [An identified family;]  The assignment of staff … to his mathematics class;  The development, discussion, or implementation of [an identified individual’s] educational plan, including any internal deliberation 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

Barry Sclar SPR26/1101 Page 2 April 1, 2026 regarding ALEKS, MTSS, instructional materials, curriculum pacing, or classroom modifications; and any records of meetings or consultations (internal or with external vendors) regarding his instructional programming;  The administration of grading policies as applied to [an identified individual]. … [3] Date Range: October 1, 2025, to the date this request is fulfilled. [4] Types of Records Requested: This request explicitly includes, but is not limited to:  Internal and external emails (including attachments)  Drafts of letters or communications  Internal instant messages (e.g., Google Chat, Microsoft Teams)  Text messages on district-issued mobile devices (or personal devices used to conduct district business)  Meeting notes, calendar invites, and internal memos  Audio recordings, voicemails, Voice Memos, and meeting transcripts The School responded on March 25, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Dr. Faraclas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1101, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Dr. Faraclas’ status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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

Barry Sclar SPR26/1101 Page 3 April 1, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Dr. Faraclas contends: The RAO’s reliance on FERPA as the statutory basis for Exemption (a) is a fundamental misapplication of the statute. FERPA does not prohibit a school district from disclosing a student’s education records to that student’s parent. … The RAO argues that “we cannot simply redact the documents to protect the student’s privacy.” This is a non-sequitur. My request explicitly waived any need to redact [an identified individual’s] information. The District’s only obligation is to redact the personally identifiable information of other students, which is a routine and legally required task — not a basis for blanket denial. The School’s March 25th Response On March 25, 2026, the School stated that it withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a), (c). The School cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as the basis for withholding the requested records. Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway

Barry Sclar SPR26/1101 Page 4 April 1, 2026 Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) In its response, the School referenced the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as applicable to withhold the requested records or information. “Education records” under FERPA are defined as: those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(i-ii). FERPA defines “personally identifiable information” as including, but not limited to: (a) The student’s name; (b) The name of the student's parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student's family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the Student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student's date of birth, place of birth, and mother's maiden name; (t) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3. When citing FERPA in its response, the School states, “[a]s your … status is not relevant under Public Records Law, and you are aware of the identity of the student whose documentation

Barry Sclar SPR26/1101 Page 5 April 1, 2026 you are requesting, we cannot simply redact the documents to protect the student’s privacy.” FERPA provides a mechanism which allows for the public disclosure of information from education records when information classified as personally identifiable information is removed. As indicated above, under 34 C.F.R. 99.3 personally identifiable information includes, but is not limited to, student’s name; name of the student’s parents or other family member; address of the student or student’s family; a personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. 99.3. Based on the School’s response, it is unclear what information has been withheld, and how the withheld information constitutes personally identifiable information as described in the statute. Additionally, it is unclear how the records can be withheld in their entirety and why segregable portions cannot be provided. The School must clarify these matters. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed

Barry Sclar SPR26/1101 Page 6 April 1, 2026 to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. In its response, the School states, “[p]lease note that the information you are requesting is directly related to a student in our district and your relationship to that student does not supersede the privacy protections provided in the Public Records Law.” Based on the School’s response, I find it is unclear what type of information was withheld from the responsive record or how the information constitutes intimate details of a highly nature. It is additionally uncertain how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities or whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. Also, the School did not provide additional information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The School must clarify these issues. Greater Right of Access to the Records Where the statutes list authorized persons that may have access to the responsive records, Dr. Faraclas may have a right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. This office encourages Dr. Faraclas and the School to communicate directly to determine if there is another means affording Dr. Faraclas a greater right of access to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Dr. Faraclas 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. Dr. Faraclas may further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Barry Sclar SPR26/1101 Page 7 April 1, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Elias Faraclas