DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261199)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 14, 2026 SPR26/1199 Kathleen Genther Records Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools 8 Bush Street Dartmouth, MA 02748 Dear Ms. Genther: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of 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 30, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested, “. . . the following existing records related to the ‘Academic Support’ class/service at Dartmouth High School”: Course Approval & Curriculum [1] Course proposals, descriptions, curriculum documents, or instructional outlines for Academic Support[;] [2] Records showing School Committee approval of Academic Support as a course (minutes, agendas, supporting documents)[;] [3] Internal course catalog entries or Aspen course codes associated with Academic Support[;] Program of Studies Documentation [4] All versions or drafts of the Dartmouth High School Program of Studies from 2020–2025 that include, reference, or describe Academic Support[;] [5] Internal communications, memos, or notes regarding the inclusion, exclusion, or description of Academic Support in the Program of Studies[;] Placement & Eligibility Criteria [6] Written criteria, guidelines, or procedures used to determine student placement into Academic Support[;] [7] Documents indicating whether Academic Support is restricted to students with IEPs[;] Special Education Service Documentation [8] Internal descriptions, guidelines, or policies describing Academic Support as a special education service, including staffing requirements and 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 Genther SPR26/1199 Page 2 April 14, 2026 service‑delivery expectations[;] [9] Documents outlining how Academic Support minutes are scheduled or delivered during the school day[;] Scheduling & Implementation [10] Documents describing how Academic Support is scheduled (e.g., class period, block, flexible service)[;] [11] Internal guidance on whether Academic Support is credit‑bearing, pass/fail, or appears on student transcripts[;] Historical Grading Method Records [12] Records showing the grading method for Academic Support for each school year from 2018–2025 (letter‑graded or pass/fail)[;] [13] Historical Aspen course catalog entries for Academic Support, including prior grading methods, credit values, and course codes[;] Classification & Coding [14] Records indicating whether Academic Support is classified as a course, support block, special education service, or another category[;] [15] Documents describing how Academic Support is coded for scheduling, reporting, or transcript purposes[;] Implementation History [16] Records showing when Academic Support was first implemented at Dartmouth High School, including the first year it appeared in the Aspen course catalog or master schedule[.] On March 5, 2026, Ms. DaSilva clarified Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of her request as follows: [2] School Committee Approval[:] Any School Committee minutes, agendas, packets, or supporting documents showing approval, discussion, or presentation of Academic Support as a course or service. [3] Aspen Coding[:] The Aspen course code(s), course type designation, credit settings, grading settings, and transcript display settings used for Academic Support. Any internal documents describing how Academic Support is coded in Aspen. [5] Program of Studies Communications[:] Any internal communications, drafts, notes, or emails discussing whether Academic Support should be included or excluded from the Program of Studies. [7] Eligibility Documentation[:] Any written documents, memos, or guidance stating whether Academic Support is restricted to students with IEPs or available to general education students. [8] Special Education Service Documentation[:] Any internal descriptions, guidelines, or documents describing Academic Support as a special education

Kathleen Genther SPR26/1199 Page 3 April 14, 2026 service, including staffing requirements, service‑delivery expectations, or how the service is defined within the district. [9] Service‑Delivery Scheduling[:] Any documents outlining how Academic Support minutes are scheduled or delivered during the school day, including guidance on scheduling special education services into block schedules. [10] Scheduling as a Class[:] Any documents describing how Academic Support is scheduled as a class period, including internal scheduling procedures, placement rules, or guidance used by counselors or administrators. [12] Grading Method[:] Any documents, memos, or guidance explaining the use of Pass/Fail grading for Academic Support, including any rubrics, criteria, or instructions provided to staff. [14] Classification[:] Any documents indicating whether Academic Support is classified as a course, support block, special education service, or other category for scheduling or reporting purposes. [15] Reporting & Transcript Coding[:] Any documents describing how Academic Support is coded for scheduling, reporting, or transcript purposes, including internal coding sheets or guidance. [16] Implementation History[:] Records showing when Academic Support was first implemented at Dartmouth High School, including the first year it appeared in Aspen, the master schedule, or student transcripts. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0573 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 3, 2026). In my March 3rd determination, I found that Items 1, 4, 6, 11, and 13, reasonably described the categories of records Ms. DaSilva sought, and I ordered the School to provide responsive records. I determined that the remaining Items of Ms. DaSilva’s request did not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought, and encouraged Ms. DaSilva to clarify her request. Ms. DaSilva clarified her request on March 3, 2026. The School provided a response on March 17, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1199, 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

Kathleen Genther SPR26/1199 Page 4 April 14, 2026 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. 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 contends: 1. DPS improperly re‑denied items the Supervisor explicitly allowed me to clarify. . . . On March 13, 2026, I submitted a clarified request that replaced every verb the Supervisor identified (“associated with,” “regarding,” “indicating whether,” “describing,” “outlining,” “showing”) with specific, concrete record types,

Kathleen Genther SPR26/1199 Page 5 April 14, 2026 including: minutes[,] agendas[,] packets[,] internal documents[,] memos[,] guidance[,] coding sheets[,] [and] master schedules[.] Despite this, DPS’s March 17 response re‑denied all eleven clarified items, asserting that they still “lack sufficient specificity.” This directly contradicts the Supervisor’s order permitting clarification and requiring a response. 2. DPS misrepresented the Supervisor’s determination. . . . This is inaccurate. The Supervisor did not uphold DPS’s denial. Instead, the Supervisor instructed me to clarify the specific records sought and ordered DPS to respond within 10 business days once clarification was provided. 3. DPS again refused to conduct any search. . . . 4. DPS improperly conditioned compliance on prepayment of a fee estimate. . . . 5. DPS failed to comply with its duty to assist. . . . The School’s March 17th Response and Fee Estimate In its March 17, 2026 response, the School stated: Even as revised in the March 13 Request, Items # 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 still lack sufficient specificity to enable DPS to identify the requested items. As a result, DPS denies these Items of the March 13 Request, for the same reason it denied the original Request, which reasons were validated by the Supervisor’s Determination. . . . Each of the above listed Items uses similar qualifying language which would require DPS personnel to make subjective judgments regarding whether a particular record is sufficiently related to the subject matter(s) identified (e.g., records “showing,” “describing how,” “discussing,” “stating whether,” “outlining how,” “explaining,” or “indicating,” specific subjects). These items of the Request quite clearly fall short of the “reasonable description of the requested record(s)” required under 950 CMR 32.06(1)(b), and as such DPS has no obligation to respond to them. . . . Additionally, the School assessed a total fee estimate of $200, stating, “[w]ith respect to Items # 1, 4, 6, 11, and 13, DPS will begin searching for and compiling records responsive to these Items upon your payment of the fee estimate of $200.00 set forth in the February 13, 2026 response.”

Kathleen Genther SPR26/1199 Page 6 April 14, 2026 Reasonable Description of 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). 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. l 784CV02087, 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 judgments 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). Where Ms. DaSilva provided further clarification for Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of her request, this office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the School to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva must identify the specific documents she seeks. The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). If outstanding issues remain after Ms. DaSilva and the School communicate further as described above, Ms. DaSilva may further appeal this issue within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Regarding Items 1, 4, 6, 11, and 13 of Ms. DaSilva’s original request, although the School has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will require a fee of $200, the School has not provided sufficient explanation of the amount of employee time that is necessary. Specifically, it is not clear from the School’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. The School must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. The School must also clarify how many pages of records it possesses which are responsive to the request.

Kathleen Genther SPR26/1199 Page 7 April 14, 2026 For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the total fee of $200 assessed in its March 17th estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). 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