Dias, Collin v. Fall River, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20261466)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 30, 2026 SPR26/1466 Debra Cabral Administrative Assistant to the School Committee Fall River Public Schools 417 Rock Street Fall River, MA 02720 Dear Ms. Cabral: I have received the petition of Collin Dias appealing the response of the Fall River 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 26, 2026, Mr. Dias requested the following: [1] All text messages to and from the following school department phone numbers: [a specified phone number][;] [2] All photos stored on the following phone with the phone number: [a specified phone number][;] [3] Any call log and iPhone storage maintained on the phone with the following phone number: [a specified phone number][;] [4] The search history of [an identified individual] on any Chromebook, iPad, google account, or phone maintained by the Fall River Public Schools[.] The School responded on February 27, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Dias petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1366, 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). 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

Debra Cabral SPR26/1466 Page 2 April 30, 2026 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. The School’s February 27th Response In its February 27, 2026 response, the School stated the following: Your requests seek specific information from the cell phone number [a specified phone number], operated by an employee of the Fall River Public Schools. To the extent that any messages on the cell phone are related solely to the individual’s personal communications with family and friends, such documents will be withheld, as they are unrelated to their official capacity, and do not meet the definition of public records as defined by 950 CMR 32.02 and M.G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Following a thorough search of this cell phone for records responsive to Request Nos. 1-3, within the specified time frame, the District has determined that no such records exist. In response to Request No. 4, the District’s IT department conducted a search for records responsive to this request; however, the District does not track, log, or filter individual staff internet search activity. Accordingly, records of search history for the staff member do not exist within the District’s custody or control. Current Appeal In his appeal, Mr. Dias states the following: I am specifically appealing the response to request 4. The district has a duty to reach out to Mr. Borges for the records requested. I asked for records on devices that were paid for by the Fall River Public schools. The taxpayers pay for these devices. The district basically said that because the district IT company doesn’t oversee it directly it does not exist. That is a false statement. Upon review of Mr. Dias’ appeal petition, it appears he objects only to the City’s response to Item 4 of the request.

Debra Cabral SPR26/1466 Page 3 April 30, 2026 No Duty to Create Records Please be advised that 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). Where the School has confirmed that it does not possess records responsive to Mr. Dias’ request, and has no duty to create records responsive to the request, I find that the School has met its burden in responding to this request under the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iii). Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Dias is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that 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: Collin Dias