DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261233)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 17, 2026 SPR26/1233 Kathleen Genthner Records Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools Office of the Superintendent 8 Bush Street Dartmouth, MA 02749 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, § l0A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 8, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested, “... copies of all existing record related to curriculum purchases made by Dartmouth Public Schools for FY22, FY23, FY24, FY25, and FY26 [including] ... any existing records such as:” [1] Contracts[;] [2] Purchase Orders[;] [3] Invoices[;] [4] Quotes[;] [5] Digital Licenses[;] [6] Textbooks or student editions[;] [7] Teacher editions[;] [8] Supplemental materials[;] [9] Professional development tied to curriculum purchases[.] Prior Appeals This request was the subject of prior appeals. See SPR26/0245 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 10, 2026) and SPR26/0781 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 18, 2026). In my March 18th determination, I found that it was unclear why it will take the School 3 minutes per purchase to do the tasks involved in producing the requested records, and asked the School to clarify how many pages there are in a purchase record with and without the digital license documents or contract. The School responded on April 1, 2026. 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 SPR26/1233 Page 2 April 17, 2026 Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1233, was opened as a result. 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 (two) 2 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 April 3, 2026 appeal, Ms. DaSilva stated, “DPS’s April 1 response repeats the same 3‑minute estimate and the same 5‑record sample without providing the additional detail required. The response does not explain how page count relates to the time estimate, does not address the representativeness of the sample, and does not provide the further detail required under G.L. c. 66, §10(d) … DPS again relies on a 5‑record sample that is not representative.” The School’s April 1st Response In its April 1, 2026 response, the School provided additional details regarding its fee estimate of $1,428.75. In support of the fee estimate the School stated, DPS hereby clarifies that the number of pages in each purchase record varies, but typically is between 4-6 pages. However, a random sampling of purchase records between 2022 and 2026 revealed some purchase records with up to 13 pages Because of this variance in the number of pages in each purchase record, DPS based its fee estimate on a sample set of 5 purchases which it then conducted the tasks which would be required to search for, compile, and reproduce the records.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1233 Page 3 April 17, 2026 As detailed in DPS’s March 4, 2026 supplemental response, it took DPS 13 minutes to perform the specific tasks outlined in the response for the 5 sample records (“confirm whether it is responsive (ie, whether it is “related to curriculum Purchases”), open the invoice as a .pdf file, print or save the invoice, open the quote as a .pdf file (if applicable), print or save the quote, open the contract as a .pdffile (if applicable), print or save the contract, open the digital license as a .pdf file (if applicable), print or save the license, print or save the purchase order.”), resulting in an estimate of 3 minutes per purchase record. Basing its fee estimate on an actual sample of records is a reasonable method to ensure an accurate estimate of the time which will be required to produce the responsive records. Based on the School’s response, which explains that it “. . . will take 3 minutes per purchase” of typically 4-6 pages to perform the work described above, I find the School has met its burden to establish that it will take this amount of time to prepare the records for production. I encourage Ms. DaSilva and the School to work together in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may wish to narrow her request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. This office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva