Crispo, Carroll v. Masconomet Regional School District (SPR 20261194)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 10, 2026 SPR26/1194 Jacqueline Bolduc Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Masconomet Regional School District 20 Endicott Road Boxford, MA 01921 Dear Ms. Bolduc: I have received the petition of Carroll Crispo appealing the response of the Masconomet Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 25, 2026, Ms. Crispo made the following request: Stantech has completed significant work for the Masconomet Regional School District (MRSD) and I am looking for documents that will answer the following questions: [1] How much money has Stantec been paid by the MRSD and the towns of Boxford, Topsfield and Middleton for work performed in the past 10 years? [2] For what purposes and projects was the money paid? Please be specific and itemize for each purpose and project. [3] Which budget line item or other funding source was used to pay for these purposes or projects and in which fiscal year was it paid or funded? [4] Are there any pending or unpaid invoices for any work that is in progress or has been completed? [5] Is there any work, including any legal work, regarding the athletic fields or turf field project performed by or will be performed by any other companies that has been invoiced, paid or is pending payment to those companies? 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

Jacqueline Bolduc SPR26/1194 Page 2 April 10, 2026 [6] Who performed or will perform the work in question #5, when was it performed or when will it be performed, what is the cost and by whom was it or will the cost be paid? The District responded on March 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Crispo petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1194, 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 District’s March 9th Response In its March 9, 2026 response, the District provided records responsive to Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the request. Regarding Items 5 and 6, the District stated, “[a]sking an open ended question does not qualify as a public records request. A public records request must seek ‘records’ that already exist, usually in writing, and/or in one of the formats defined in G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26.” In a follow-up email to the District on March 18, 2026, Ms. Crispo clarified: My question (regarding item 5 and 6) is: you are apparently unwilling or unable to tell me what other companies are involved in the multi-million dollar process of rehabbing the athletic facilities at Masconomet. This is not a creation of a document: I would assume that there are some kind of contracts (legal or otherwise) or PO orders, or other financial papers that directly involve this project. The law does not assume that I need to know what documents are in your

Jacqueline Bolduc SPR26/1194 Page 3 April 10, 2026 possession, but does assume that you have superior knowledge that will help me in my request. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Crispo stated, “[t]he response given by the RAO was that my question was open ended and therefore no public documents could be furnished. I asked for help, and none was forth-coming.” It appears Ms. Crispo is only appealing the District’s response to Items 5 and 6. No Duty to Answer Questions Regarding Items 5 and 6 of the request, Ms. Crispo is 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). Pursuant to 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). Please also 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). Where Items 5 and 6 of Ms. Crispo’s request constitute questions, I find that the District has no duty under the Public Records Law to answer such questions and has met its burden in responding to the request. However, where Ms. Crispo has attempted to clarify the types of records she is seeking, this office encourages Ms. Crispo and the District to continue to communicate to facility providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Crispo and the District communicate further as described above, Ms. Crispo may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Jacqueline Bolduc SPR26/1194 Page 4 April 10, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Carroll Crispo