DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261277)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 22, 2026 SPR26/1277 Kathleen Genthner Record Access Officer Dartmouth Public Schools 8 Bush Street Dartmouth, MA 02748 Dear Ms. Genthner: I have received the petition of Ana DaSilva appealing the response of Dartmouth Public Schools (School/DPS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 23, 2026, Ms. DaSilva requested: [1] All records of any investigation involving staff conduct on the Portugal trip, including but not limited to:  incident reports  complaints or allegations received  emails, texts, or written communications between administrators, HR, or legal counsel  notes or summaries of staff interviews  timelines, findings, or conclusions  records indicating which staff members were questioned and which were not Date range: April 1, 2024 – June 30, 2024 [2] Emails sent or received by [an identified individual] contain the keyword “Portugal”  keyword: Portugal  sender/recipient: [a specified email address] (or any district email assigned to [an identified individual] Date range: March 1, 2024 – June 20, 2024 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 SPR26/1277 Page 2 April 22, 2026 [3] Any records documenting student interviews, conversations, or fact-finding conducted by any Dartmouth High School administrator regarding staff conduct on the Portugal trip. Date range: April 1, 2024 – June 30, 2024 [4] All records related to administrative action or response, including:  written reprimands  notices of discipline  leave notices  non‑renewal documentation  resignation letters  separation agreements  HR communications regarding next steps Date range: March 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 [5] Communications between DPS and any receiving district regarding [an identified individual]:  reference checks  employment verification  statements about performance, conduct, or eligibility for rehire Date range: April 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 [6] Chaperone-Related Records  chaperone list  chaperone training materials  chaperone responsibility guidelines  any chaperone statements or reports  any records referencing chaperone supervision concerns or violations Date range: January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 [7] Trip approval and safety documentation  the trip approval packet submitted by [an identified individual]  Superintendent approval  School Committee notification  Safety plan  Supervision plan  Itinerary  Lodging assignments  Rooming lists

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 3 April 22, 2026 [8] Any records referencing or documenting potential or actual violations of:  GBEB (Staff Conduct)  IJOA (Field Trips/Excursions)  JICH (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Drug Use by Students)  Mandatory reporting obligations  Staff supervision obligations Date range: January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 [9] Any responsive communications sent or received on:  Text message / SMS  iMessage  Whatsapp  GroupMe  Google Drive or shared drive  Personal email accounts used for district business Date range: March 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 The School responded on April 6, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1277, 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. Att’y 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 specifiTown 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.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 4 April 22, 2026 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). The School’s April 6th Response On April 6, 2026, the School provided the following response: … DPS provides the following response to the Request and provides a fee estimate. In general, the Request, is extremely similar to a previous request you made dated February 11, 2026, and which DPS responded to on March 5, 2026. Where the Request seeks many of the same records which were the subject which were the subject of the February 11, 2026 request, DPS’s response will reference its March 5, 2026 response where applicable. DPS is also filing a fee and time petition to the Supervisor of Public Records and will provide you with a copy of the same. [1] DPS has identified records responsive to Item #1 in the Request. Records responsive to Item #1 include records identified as responsive to Item #5 in the February 11 request, which DPS responded to on March 5. Each record will need to be reviewed to determine whether it contains any information exempt from disclosure, and any information subject to redaction will need to be segregated and redacted prior to production. DPS expects that the responsive records will contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and/or (c) to the Public Records Law… [2] DPS has identified records responsive to Item #2 in the Request. Item #2 is identical to Item #1 in the February 11th request, which DPS responded to on March 5. Each record will need to be reviewed to determine whether it contains

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 5 April 22, 2026 any information exempt from disclosure, and any information subject to redaction will need to be segregated and redacted prior to production. DPS expects that the responsive records will contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and/or (c) to the Public Records Law… [3] Item #3 in the Request is identical to Item #5 of the February 11th request. As stated in DPS’s March 5th response, DPS has identified responsive records. Each record will need to be reviewed to determine whether it contains any information exempt from disclosure, and any information subject to redaction will need to be segregated and redacted prior to production. DPS expects that the responsive records will contain information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (a) and/or (c) to the Public Records Law… [4] Item #4 of the Request, which asks for records “related to administrative action or response,” lack sufficient specificity to require a response under the Public Records Law. [5] Item #5 of the Request, which asks for records “related to” five identified subjects, lacks sufficient specificity to require a response under the Public Records Law. [6] Item #6 of the Request, which asks for records “referencing,” “regarding,” or “about,” four identified subjects, lacks sufficient specificity to require a response under the Public Records Law. [7] Item #7 of the Request is identical to Item #4 of the February 11th request. As stated in DPS’s March 5th response, DPS is not in possession of any responsive records. [8] Records responsive to Item #8 of the Request are attached. DPS has redacted personally identifying information of students from the attached chaperone list, pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law…DPS is not in possession of chaperone training materials, chaperone responsibility guidelines, or any chaperone statements or reports. Item #8’s request for records “referencing” chaperone supervision concerns or violations lack sufficient specificity to require a response under the Public Records Law. [9] All records in DPS’s possession responsive to Item #9 of the Request are enclosed. [10] Item #10 of the Request, which asks for records “referencing or documenting” five identified subjects, lacks sufficient specificity to require a response under the Public Records Law. [11] DPS is not in possession of any records responsive to Item #11 of the

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 6 April 22, 2026 Request. . . DPS provides the below fee estimate, which is calculated based on the following facts relevant to the Request:  the responsive records are not freely available for public inspection;  information in the responsive records must be redacted by law, and DPS is filing a fee petition to authorize it to assess a fee for all other redactions of exempt information;  the lowest paid employees who possess the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records have hourly rates exceeding $25.00 per hour. Based on the above, DPS is authorized by law to assess a fee for production of the requested records; it authorized to include a part of the fee estimate an hourly fee of $25 per hour for time required to search for, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records; and is authorized to charge said hourly fee for all time, excepting the first two (2) hours. DPS has identified approximately 200 pages of records responsive to Items #1 and #2 of the Request. Based on an estimate of approximately 1 minute per page, DPS provides an estimate of 3.3 hours of segregation and redaction time to comply with your request. 200 x 1 minute per page = 200 minutes or 3.3 hours of segregation and redaction time[.] In addition to the above projection, DPS has already spent approximately 3.5 hours searching for and compiling the responsive records. When added to the estimated segregation and redaction time, this results in a total of 6.8 hours. After excluding the first two hours of employee time, 4.8 hours multiplied by $25 per hour yields a fee estimate of $120.00. Current Appeal In her April 7, 2026 appeal to this office, Ms. DaSilva stated the following: This appeal focuses on: 1. DPS’s failure to conduct a new, adequate search; 2. DPS’s inconsistent and contradictory representations across three prior determinations (SPR26/0314, SPR26/0749, SPR26/0858); 3. DPS’s improper use of “lack of specificity” to deny multiple categories of clearly described records;

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 7 April 22, 2026 4. DPS’s claims that required records do not exist, despite the district’s own policies and the records DPS produced; and 5. DPS’s fee estimate, which appears duplicative of prior searches… Reasonable Description of Records Sought – Items 4, 5, 6, and 8 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. 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 satisify the statutory standard of request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In this case, Ms. DaSilva has provided a date range, descriptions of the categories of responsive records she is seeking, including the specific subject matter of the records and examples of records sought. Consequently, she has provided sufficient particularity required to identify the documents she is seeking in Items 4, 5, 6, and 7. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate – Items 1, 2, and 3 Although the School has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 4.8 hours of employee time, the School has not provided sufficient explanation of why this amount of employee time is necessary. Specifically, under the Public Records Law, a fee may 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 pursuant to a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Although the School has indicated that it intends to redact certain information pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the School must clarify which statute requires it to do so. Further, where I have confirmed that the School has not submitted a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv), seeking permission to charge for redactions performed under Exemption (c), the School must clarify if the fee assessed includes time necessary to redact records under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 8 April 22, 2026 further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate further in order to facilitate 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Records in Existence – Items 7 and 11 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). 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). 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). In this case, based on the School’s response, and the information provided in Ms. DaSilva’s appeal petition, it is unclear whether the School possesses records responsive to Items 7 and 11 of Ms. DaSilva’s request. If the School does possess 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”). 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 appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1277 Page 9 April 22, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva