Faraclas, Elias v. Wachusett Regional School District (SPR 20261410)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 29, 2026 SPR26/1410 Barry Sclar Records Access Officer Wachusett Regional School District 1745 Main Street Jefferson, MA 01522 Dear Mr. Sclar: I have received the petition of Elias Faraclas appealing the response of the Wachusett Regional School District (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 12, 2026, Dr. Faraclas requested: …all internal communications, documents, and records regarding my son, his educational programming, and instruction. This includes any administrative decisions or discussions concerning his academic placement, curriculum delivery, and student support services. Please provide copies of the following: [1] Custodians to be Searched: Please search the email accounts, digital workspaces, internal messaging systems (e.g., Google Chat, Microsoft Teams), and district-issued devices (as well as any personal devices used for district business) of [six identified individuals]: [2] Search Terms & Responsive Topics: Please produce all records that contain [two identified names], as well as any records concerning his educational placement, student status, or the active Problem Resolution System (PRS) complaint. Specifically, this request includes all internal communications discussing:  [An identified family;]  The assignment of staff … to his mathematics class;  The development, discussion, or implementation of [an identified individual’s] educational plan, including any internal deliberation 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

Barry Sclar SPR26/1410 Page 2 April 29, 2026 regarding ALEKS, MTSS, instructional materials, curriculum pacing, or classroom modifications; and any records of meetings or consultations (internal or with external vendors) regarding his instructional programming;  The administration of grading policies as applied to [an identified individual]. … [3] Date Range: October 1, 2025, to the date this request is fulfilled. [4] Types of Records Requested: This request explicitly includes, but is not limited to:  Internal and external emails (including attachments)  Drafts of letters or communications  Internal instant messages (e.g., Google Chat, Microsoft Teams)  Text messages on district-issued mobile devices (or personal devices used to conduct district business)  Meeting notes, calendar invites, and internal memos  Audio recordings, voicemails, Voice Memos, and meeting transcripts Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR26/1101 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 1, 2026). In my April 1st determination, I ordered the School to clarify how the responsive records could be withheld under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. The School responded on April 15, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Dr. Faraclas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1410, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Dr. Faraclas’ status shall have no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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

Barry Sclar SPR26/1410 Page 3 April 29, 2026 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. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Dr. Faraclas contends: [The School] reasserts the same two exemptions, adds citations and case law, but continues to withhold all responsive records in their entirety without identifying specific records, without conducting a record-by-record or category-by-category analysis, and without meaningfully addressing the segregability requirement. . . The School’s April 15th Response In its April 15, 2026 response, the School cited G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 34E, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as they operate through Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). Additionally, the School cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to withhold the responsive records in their entirety. See G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Exemption (a) Exemption (a), known as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting statute relied upon expressly or

Barry Sclar SPR26/1410 Page 4 April 29, 2026 necessarily implies that the public’s right to inspect records under the Public Records Law is restricted. See Att’y Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 154 (1979); Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 545-546 (1977). This exemption creates two categories of exempt records. The first category includes records that are specifically exempt from disclosure by statute. Such statutes expressly state that such a record either “shall not be a public record,” “shall be kept confidential” or “shall not be subject to the disclosure provision of the Public Records Law.” The second category under the exemption includes records deemed exempt under statute by necessary implication. Such statutes expressly limit the dissemination of particular records to a defined group of individuals or entities. A statute is not a basis for exemption if it merely lists individuals or entities to whom the records are to be provided; the statute must expressly limit access to the listed individuals or entities. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) In its response, the School referenced the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as applicable to withhold the requested records or information. “Education records” under FERPA are defined as: those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(i-ii). FERPA defines “personally identifiable information” as including, but not limited to: (a) The student’s name; (b) The name of the student’s parents or other family member; (c) The address of the student or student’s family; (d) A personal identifier, such as the Student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record; (e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name; (t) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or (g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3.

Barry Sclar SPR26/1410 Page 5 April 29, 2026 G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D and 34E Additionally, in its response, the School cites G. L. c. 71, §§ 34D, 34E, which provide in pertinent parts as follows: The board of education shall adopt regulations relative to the maintenance, retention, duplication, storage and periodic destruction of student records by the public elementary and secondary schools of the commonwealth. Such rules and regulations shall provide that a parent or guardian of any pupil shall be allowed to inspect academic, scholastic, or any other records concerning such pupil which are kept or are required to be kept. G. L. c. 71, § 34D. Each school committee shall, at the request of a parent or guardian of a student, allow such parent or guardian to inspect academic, scholastic, or any other records concerning such student that are kept or are required to be kept, regardless of the age of such student. Each school committee shall, at the request of a student eighteen years of age or older, allow such student complete access to all school records relative to him or her. G. L. c. 71, § 34E. Under FERPA, the School argues the following: Most relevant to your request is sub-subsection (g) [of FERPA]. . . In this case, the District is on notice of the fact that you know the identity of the individual student for whom you are seeking records containing personally identifiable information. Therefore, because there is a reasonable basis for the District to believe that you know the identity of the student whose personally identifiable information is contained within the documentation you are requesting, under FERPA, the District is required to withhold the responsive documents to the extent they contain personally identifiable information. Even if the District were to redact the student’s name from any responsive documents, it would still be a violation of FERPA for the District to provide the record, because the “student’s identity may be personally identifiable, even after removal or redaction of nominally identifiable information.” See Letter to Anonymous (USE DOE, 4/9/2015). Therefore. . .the District is required to withhold all of the records and information sought in your March 12, 2026 public records request. Based on the School’s response, it remains unclear what records and information have been withheld from disclosure under FERPA. The School must clarify this matter.

Barry Sclar SPR26/1410 Page 6 April 29, 2026 Exemption (c) Exemption (c) applies to: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number). This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Under Exemption (c), the School argues, “[t]here is no public interest in obtaining personally identifiable records and communications pertaining to minor students, including records and information related to their individual educational programming, instruction, placement, grades, and/or support services. . .Furthermore, even if the District redacted personally identifiable information from the records, the unwarranted invasion of privacy of the minor child is not erased where the District has reasonable belief that the requestor knows the identity of the student.”

Barry Sclar SPR26/1410 Page 7 April 29, 2026 Based on the School’s response, I find it is unclear what type of information was withheld from the responsive records or how the information constitutes intimate details of a highly nature. It is additionally uncertain how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities or whether any of the information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The School must clarify these matters. Greater Right of Access to the Records Where the statutes list authorized persons that may have access to the responsive records, Dr. Faraclas may have a right of access to the responsive records outside the Public Records Law. This office encourages Dr. Faraclas and the School to communicate directly to determine if there is another means affording Dr. Faraclas a greater right of access to the responsive records. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Dr. Faraclas 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. Dr. Faraclas 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: Elias Faraclas