DaSilva, Ana v. Dartmouth, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261446)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 27, 2026 SPR26/1446 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 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 records related to an identified individual: [1] Employment Records  Start and end dates of employment  Positions held and coaching assignments  Employment contracts or offer letters  Resignation letter, separation agreement, or documentation of departure [2] Complaints, Reports, and Investigations For the period January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2024, please provide:  Any complaints, reports, or concerns submitted to the district involving or referencing [an identified individual]  Any internal investigations, findings, or determinations involving or referencing him  Any disciplinary records, including written warnings, reprimands, or corrective action  Any communications with legal counsel regarding complaints or investigations involving him… 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 SPR26/1446 Page 2 April 27, 2026 [3] Communications Emails, memos, or written communications between or involving:  [An identified individual]  Dartmouth High School administrators  Athletic Department staff  Superintendent’s Office …containing [seven identified] keywords[.] Please include a description of the search conducted, including custodians, systems searched, and search terms used, as required by 950 CMR 32.06(3). [4] Records Shared With or Received From External Agencies Any records sent to or received from law enforcement, legal counsel, or other school districts regarding [an identified individual]… [5] Policies and Procedures  Any policies, procedures, or protocols referenced or applied in connection with any complaint, report, or investigation involving him. The School initially responded on February 13, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR26/0582 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 3, 2026) and SPR26/1001 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 26, 2026). In my March 26th determination, I found that given that the School confirmed that it possesses no additional records responsive to Items 1, 2, 4, or 5 of the request, these portions of Ms. DaSilva’s appeal were resolved. Additionally, I encouraged Ms. DaSilva and the School to communicate in order to facilitate providing record responsive to Item 3 of the request more efficiently and affordably, in light of the School’s fee estimate, which had identified 106,684 potentially responsive emails. The School responded on April 9, 2026. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. DaSilva petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1446, 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).

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1446 Page 3 April 27, 2026 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). The School’s February 13th and April 9th Responses In its initial February 13, 2026 response, the School provided a fee estimate of $89,077.50 to produce records responsive to Item 3 of the request. In support of its fee estimate, the School provided the following information: DPS has identified 106,684 emails responsive to Item #3 of the Request. Based on an estimate of approximately 2 minutes per email, given that many emails contain multiples pages, DPS provides an estimate of 3,556.1 hours of segregation and redaction time to comply with your request. 106,684 emails X 2 minutes per email = 213,368 minutes or 3,556.1 hours of segregation and redaction time[.] In addition to the above projection, DPS has already spent approximately 4 hours conducting the email search, and DPS conservatively estimates that it will spend approximately 5 hours on the search, segregation and redaction of other, non- email records included in the request for a total of 3,565.1 hours. After excluding the first two hours of employee time, 3,563.1 hours multiplied by $25 per hour yields a fee estimate of $89,077.50. The actual fee to produce the responsive emails may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary segregation and redaction process In its April 9, 2026 response, the School stated: DPS’s search, which resulted in the identification of 106,684 responsive emails, was conducted using specific search criteria supplied by you in the Request (ie, the email users and keywords were all specifically identified by you). As directed by the Supervisor, DPS hereby suggests the following reasonable modifications to the Request: DPS suggests that you may narrow your request to reduce the number of email users, reduce the number of keywords, and/or limit the date range. Any of these modifications to the Request would reduce the number of

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1446 Page 4 April 27, 2026 responsive records; the degree of the reduction is dependent upon the degree to which you narrow the request. As of the date of this response, you have not communicated with DPS in an attempt to narrow or otherwise modify the Request. Please advise if you would like to submit a modified request, and DPS will respond accordingly with a modified fee estimate. In a follow-up email to the School on April 9, 2026, Ms. DaSilva stated: …DPS must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest reasonable modifications that would meaningfully reduce the volume of responsive emails. Your April 9 letter… does not identify which specific custodians, keywords, or date parameters would significantly reduce the number of responsive records while still capturing the communications described in Item 3. To evaluate any potential narrowing, please identify: • which custodians would meaningfully reduce the volume, • which keywords generate the highest number of hits, • and which date ranges would substantially reduce the number of responsive emails. This information is necessary for me to understand how the 106,684‑email count was generated. Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. DaSilva stated, “[a]s of the date of this appeal, DPS has not provided any of the requested information and has not offered any meaningful narrowing suggestions based on its superior knowledge of the records. DPS’s April 9 supplemental response therefore does not comply with the Determination…” Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames 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.

Kathleen Genthner SPR26/1446 Page 5 April 27, 2026 The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. In light of the School’s fee estimate, where it continues to identify 106,684 potentially responsive emails to Item 3 of the request, many of which “contain multiples pages,” this office continues to encourage Ms. DaSilva and the School to continue communicating directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. DaSilva may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the School to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The School must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. 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. Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. DaSilva and the School communicate further as described above, Ms. DaSilva may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ana DaSilva