DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261298)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 16, 2026 SPR26/1298 Kathleen Genthner Records 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 the Dartmouth Public Schools (School) to four requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 17, 2026, Ms. DaSilva made the following requests, which she has identified as follows: Request 1 I request all Dartmouth Public Schools financial records from FY18–FY26 reflecting any payments made to, reimbursed to, or made on behalf of [an identified individual], including but not limited to: • tuition • graduate coursework • doctoral program expenses • University of Massachusetts Lowell program fees • cohort or partnership program fees • professional development reimbursements • tuition reimbursement agreements • stipends or allowances for continuing education • travel, conference, lodging, or materials expenses • any other district-funded educational or professional development expenses Please include all supporting documentation, including invoices, receipts, purchase orders, reimbursement forms, approval forms, credit card or procurement card statements, vendor payment records, accounts payable records, and any internal communications transmitting or approving the expense… 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 SPR26/1298 Page 2 April 16, 2026 Request 5 I request all records withheld, redacted, or excluded from the Public Records Request titled “Records Concerning Tuition, Reimbursements, and Payments for [an identified individual],” including: • the specific records withheld • the legal basis for each withholding • any responsive records identified but not produced • any records determined to “not exist” • any internal communications regarding the search or withholding Please include all supporting documentation associated with any withheld or partially withheld records… Request 6 I request all records of district‑funded professional development, workshops, conferences, trainings, or coursework for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment, including registrations, invoices, approvals, and payments. Please provide all records of district‑funded professional development, workshops, conferences, trainings, or coursework for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment, including registrations, invoices, approvals, and payments. Please include all supporting documentation, including invoices, receipts, approval forms, reimbursement forms, vendor payment records, and any internal communications transmitting or approving the expense… Request 7 I request all emails, memos, or internal communications between district administrators, HR, finance, or school leadership regarding tuition reimbursement, PD funding, or degree‑related support for [an identified individual] for all fiscal years of his employment… Please include all supporting documentation, including attachments, approval forms, and any internal communications transmitting or approving the expense… The School initially responded on March 10, 2026 and provided a fee estimate to produce the records responsive to Request 1 and 6. Previous Appeal These requests were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/0952 Determination of the Supervisor of Records. (March 25, 2026). In my March 25th determination, regarding Item 5,

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1298 Page 3 April 16, 2026 I found that where that the School confirmed that it possesses no additional responsive records, this portion of Ms. DaSilva’s was resolved. Regarding Requests 1 and 6, I ordered the School to clarify whether it provided a timely response in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) in order to assess a fee. Regarding Item 7, I encouraged Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The School responded on April 8, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1298, 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. 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).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1298 Page 4 April 16, 2026 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 March 10th and April 8th Responses In its previous March 10, 2026 response, the School provided a fee estimate of $962.50 to produce the remaining records responsive to Requests 1 and 6. In support of its fee estimate, the School provided the following information: DPS will need to review accounts payable records for each of the 9 fiscal years covered by the request, in order to locate purchase orders, reimbursement requests, and any associated registrations, invoices, approvals, payments, receipts, and internal communications, to the extent these records exist with respect to each payment or reimbursement by DPS. DPS will then need to print or save each responsive record. These records will include information exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemptions (o) and (c) to the Public Records Law. (Home addresses, personal email addresses, and home telephone numbers of a public employee are exempt pursuant to exemption (o), and bank account information of an individual, the disclosure of which would constitute and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, is exempt pursuant to exemption (c)). As a result, DPS will then need to review each document, and segregate and redact all exempt information. Based on a review of responsive records for one fiscal year, DPS estimates that it will take 4.5 hours for each fiscal year to perform the tasks described above prior to production of the responsive records. Based on the request’s scope of 9 fiscal years, DPS estimates that it will take 40.5 hours to search, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records… In this case, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to segregate and redact the records requested has an hourly rate which exceeds $25 per hour. In accordance with 950 CMR 37.02(2)(m)(l), the Requester will not be charged for the first two (2) hours of those services and will only be charged at a rate of $25 per hour. You submitted eight (8) public records requests on February 17, 2026, many of which have subparts as detailed above. DPS has previously responded to three (3) of the requests, and in this response provides you with a response and fee estimate (where applicable) for the remaining five (5) requests. Because the requests are interrelated and were all submitted within a two-hour time period, DPS is treating the requests as one large request. The total estimated hours to respond to these requests is 40.5 hours, as described in the response to [Request 1 and 6] above. After subtracting the first two (2) hours, 38.5 hours remain to search, compile, segregate, and redact the responsive records. At the rate of $25 per hour, the total fee estimate is $962.50…

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1298 Page 5 April 16, 2026 In its April 8, 2026 response, the School stated: As of the date of this response, you have not made any attempt to clarify or narrow [Request 7]. Should you wish to do so, DPS will respond in accordance with its legal obligations… DPS’s March 10 response was provided within 10 business days following receipt of your February 17, 2026 requests, and as such was timely in compliance with M.G.L. c. 66, §10(b). As you aware, DPS’s schools and offices were closed unexpectedly from February 23 through February 27, 2026, as a result of a major winter storm in which parts of Dartmouth received up to 33 inches of snow. Under the Public Records Law, these days do not count as business days for purposes of calculating the timeline for DPS’s response. See 950 CMR 32.03 (“Business Day does not include Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, or other weekdays where a custodian’s office is closed unexpectedly.”). When these days are excluded from the calculation of business days, DPS’s response was timely… Your continued assertion in your appeals that DPS’s responses in this timeframe have been untimely is not made in good faith and is part of a pattern of frivolous requests and appeals designed to harass DPS and its administration. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva argued that the School did not sufficiently demonstrate that it complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) in order to assess a fee for Requests 1 and 6, nor did it provide assistance regarding Request 7. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1298 Page 6 April 16, 2026 G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) With regard to the School’s fee estimate to produce the outstanding records responsive to Requests 1 and 6, please be advised, G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under [G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)].” In this case, the requests were submitted on February 17, 2026 and the School provided its good faith fee estimate and response on March 10, 2026. Where the School has explained that “DPS’s schools and offices were closed unexpectedly from February 23 through February 27, 2026, as a result of a major winter storm,” I find the School has sufficiently demonstrated that it complied with G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) by providing a timely response to Ms. DaSilva’s request. Accordingly, I find this portion of Ms. DaSilva’s appeal is resolved. Where the School provided a response within 10 business days, however, it is necessary to review the reasonableness of the School’s fee estimate. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the School states that it would take 40.5 hours to produce the responsive records, it is unclear why the School requires this much time. The School must advise how much time is needed to search and how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact under the law. Further, although the School indicates it will require 4.5 hours each for the 9 fiscal years covered by the request “to review accounts payable records,” it is uncertain how many pages of responsive records exist and how many minutes per page the School requires to segregate or redact the records. Accordingly, the School must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Further, where the School indicated that it intends to redact the responsive records, it must clarify if the redactions are required by law, and state the applicable statutes, if any. Pursuant to 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 under 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). Accordingly, where no such petition has been approved, the School’s fee estimate may not include time spent for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (o) of the Public Records Law, which are not “required by law.” The School must clarify these matters. For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $962.50 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may wish to narrow the request(s). 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

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1298 Page 7 April 16, 2026 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. Reasonable Description of Records Sought Regarding Request 7, please be advised that in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. In addition, please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the specific records sought. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). 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). With regard to Request 7, this office continues to encourage Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva is encouraged to provide the School with any requested clarification. 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 Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. DaSilva with a response to the request(s), 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 SPR26/1298 Page 8 April 16, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva