Alfred, Jason v. Attleboro, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20261136)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 8, 2026 SPR26/1136 David A. Sawyer Superintendent of Schools Attleboro Public Schools One Blue Pride Way Attleboro, MA 02703 Dear Superintendent Sawyer: I have received the petition of Jason Alfred appealing the response of the Attleboro Public Schools (School/APS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 2, 2026, Mr. Alfred requested the following: This request covers records created, sent, or received between March 2, 2026 and March 7, 2026, inclusive. Specifically, I am requesting the following records: 1. All emails, text messages, phone records, memoranda, notes, or other written or electronic communications between members of the Attleboro School Committee concerning statements made during or following the March 2, 2026 School Committee meeting. 2. All communications between School Committee members and Attleboro Public Schools administrators or district leadership, including the Superintendent and central administration, concerning statements made during or following the March 2, 2026 meeting. 3. All communications between School Committee members and officials or employees of the City of Attleboro, including the Mayor’s Office and City Hall staff, concerning statements made during or following the March 2, 2026 meeting. 4. All communications between School Committee members and the Attleboro Police Department, or any law enforcement agency, concerning statements made during or following the March 2, 2026 meeting, including any discussion about alleged threats or the presence of law enforcement at school committee meetings. 5. All communications referencing or concerning [a named individual]. 6. All communications involving School Committee Chair ... relating to the email sent to [a named individual] on March 6, 2026. 7. All video recordings or surveillance footage from Attleboro High School on March 2, 2026 between 6:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., including recordings from areas 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

Superintendent David A. Sawyer SPR26/1136 Page 2 April 8, 2026 where the School Committee meeting occurred, hallways adjacent to meeting spaces, entrances and exits, and common areas where School Committee members, district staff, or members of the public were present. This request includes records containing the following [list of search terms.] The School responded on March 23, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Alfred petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1136, 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. The School’s March 23rd Response In its March 23, 2026 response, the School provides numerous records responsive to Items 1-6 of the request, and indicates that it is withholding records responsive to Item 7 pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(n). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Alfred argues the following: The district’s response failed to provide records in their native electronic format and instead produced documents in a manner that appears to omit critical metadata and underlying data. The records were provided as scanned or compiled documents rather than original electronic files, which removes key information such as full email headers, timestamps, routing data, and file history.

Superintendent David A. Sawyer SPR26/1136 Page 3 April 8, 2026 Additionally, the materials provided contain inconsistencies in formatting and scanning, suggesting that multiple methods or systems were used in producing the records. These inconsistencies raise concern regarding the completeness, integrity, and accuracy of the production. The response also appears to be incomplete, as the records provided do not reflect full email threads or all responsive communications that would reasonably be expected based on the subject matter of the request. Upon review of the appeal petition, I understand that Mr. Alfred contends that records were not provided in the requested format, and that the School possesses additional records. Mr. Alfred does not appear to object to the School’s claim for withholding video and surveillance footage pursuant to Exemption (n) of the Public Records Law. Items 1-6 of the Request In its March 23, 2026 response, the School states the following with regard to Items 1-6 of the request: To respond to Items #1-6 of the Request, APS conducted searches of its email servers, and individual School Committee members conducted searches of their communications using personal emails and/or devices. Searches were conducted for the specific search terms identified in the Request, for the time frame identified in the Request. APS disclaims any responsibility to search for or produce records additional records in response to Items #1-6, as the general descriptions used in each of these Items (“concerning,” “referencing,” and “related to”) do not meet the requirement that a public records request “reasonably describes the public record sought.” G.L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). See Chawla v. Dep’t of Revenue, Suffolk Sup. No. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019)(“[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.”); see also SPR26/0573 (“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.”). Records responsive to Items #1-6, using the search terms identified in the Request, are enclosed herein. Reasonable Description of the Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i).

Superintendent David A. Sawyer SPR26/1136 Page 4 April 8, 2026 In Chawla, 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. 1784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgements about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In this case, Mr. Alfred has provided a narrow date range, and a list of specific search terms for Items 1-6 of his request. Consequently, I find that Mr. Alfred has provided the sufficient particularity required under G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i) and the Court’s holding in Chawla. Records in Existence; Possession, Custody, or Control 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). Further, 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). However, 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). Based on the School’s response, and the information provided in Mr. Alfred’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the School may possesses additional records responsive to Mr. Alfred’s request. If the School does possess additional responsive records, it must either provide the records, or cite an exemption to the Public Records Law, and explain with specificity how such an exemption applies to withhold or redact the records. See 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, including the specific exemption or exemptions upon which the withholding is based”). Preferred Format of the Requestor The School is further advised that a records access officer shall, to the extent feasible, provide public records to a requestor in electronic format unless the record is not available in electronic form or the requestor does not have the ability to receive or access the records in electronic format, and if feasible, in the requestor’s preferred format. In the absence of a preferred format, the records shall be provided in a searchable machine-readable form. See 950

Superintendent David A. Sawyer SPR26/1136 Page 5 April 8, 2026 C.M.R. 32.04(5)(d). Additionally, the Public Records Access Regulations state that “the records access officer must provide electronic records in native form when possible.” 950 C.M.R. 32.07 (1)(d). Based on the forgoing, the School must clarify whether it is able to provide the responsive records in the format requested by Mr. Alfred. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Alfred 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. Mr. Alfred 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: Jason Alfred