Public records project
Middleborough Principal-Hiring Records Project
What the public asked to inspect about a publicly funded principal search, what the district produced, what it said it had no records of, and how the Supervisor of Records handled the dispute.
On August 10, 2026, Parent Data Force asked Middleborough Public Schools for the records of its search to hire a principal at the Mary K. Goode Elementary School. The district produced fifty-three pages, said it had no records at all for three of the ten things asked, and withheld almost everything about the twenty-four people who applied and did not get the job. Twice, the Supervisor of Records has held that the district had not met its burden to redact. On September 29, the Supervisor quoted a statute the district has not yet answered. This project assembles the record from the district’s own responses and the Supervisor’s decisions.
What this project evaluates. This is a public-records project about whether the public can inspect how a publicly funded administrative decision was made, examined through one principal search as a case study. The position and the process are not the subject. This project takes no position on who should have been hired, and none is implied. It asks narrower questions: what was asked for, what was produced, what was withheld and on what stated ground, and whether the custodian carried the burden the law puts on it.
On the successful candidate’s name. The Supervisor of Records anonymizes the successful candidate throughout as [an identified individual], and Middleborough Public Schools continues to withhold that identity. The district’s own September 22, 2026 response confirmed that the withheld person is the other finalist, and Parent Data Force has asked the district’s counsel to reconsider. This project does not publish that identity, and no document published here carries it. Where this page says the successful candidate, it means the person the Supervisor means.
Last updated: October 1, 2026
What the record establishes
- Parent Data Force requested the records of the Middleborough Public Schools elementary principal search on August 10, 2026, in ten enumerated categories, with express exclusions for private material.
- The district produced fifty-three pages on August 24, 2026, redacted under Exemption (c), and stated that no responsive records were on file for items 8, 9 and 10 — internal communications, search and audit logs, and native electronic production.
- On September 8, 2026 the Supervisor of Records found the district had not met its burden to redact the successful candidate’s address under the privacy clause of Exemption (c).
- The same determination found the district had not met its burden to withhold entirely the individualized information about the twenty-four unsuccessful applicants, drawing on the finalist analysis in Attorney General v. School Committee of Northampton.
- On September 22, 2026 the Supervisor applied the same finalist analysis to the same search in SPR26/3602 and again found the burden unmet. The determination also held that unresponsive is not an exemption.
- On September 29, 2026 the Supervisor quoted G.L. c. 66, § 3A in full and ordered the district to confirm that its withheld recommendation material is not a § 3A public record, within ten business days.
- The district’s own September 22, 2026 response confirms that the person whose identity it continues to withhold is the other finalist.
- The Supervisor upheld the district’s redaction of grades earned and analysis of interview responses under the personnel clause of Exemption (c), and of a personal phone number and email under the privacy clause.
- Nothing has been produced under either order. All three determinations ordered a response within ten business days; none ordered production.
What the record does not establish
- It is not established that the address will be released. The Supervisor found the redaction unjustified as articulated; the district has not yet explained why it is justified, and may yet.
- It is not established that the applicant-pool records will be released in any particular form.
- It is not established that the district’s search was incomplete. The Supervisor found the additional-records question unclear and ordered clarification. She has not found that records are missing.
- It is not established that the recommendation letters are § 3A records. The Supervisor has required the district to confirm one way or the other; the district’s § 3A response is not in the record.
- It is not established that the district’s principal-versus-superintendent distinction fails. It is the district’s argument, and no determination has sustained or rejected it.
- The successful candidate’s identity is not public. The Supervisor anonymizes him as [an identified individual] and the district still withholds him.
- It is not established anything about whether the right candidate was hired. That question is not before the Supervisor and is not this project’s subject.
- This project takes no position on DEI, on hiring criteria, or on the merits of the hiring decision.
What remains open
The three determinations issued so far are clarification and response orders, not disclosure orders. Each gave the district ten business days to answer. None of those answers is in the record as of this writing.
- The district’s § 3A response, due within ten business days of September 29, 2026. It must confirm on the record that its withheld recommendation material is not a § 3A public record.
- Any determination in SPR26/3939, opened September 22, 2026 and undetermined.
- Whether the address and applicant-pool records are released, and in what form.
- Whether the district will identify the applicants who advanced past initial screening — the specific fact the Supervisor said it needed on September 8 and again on September 22.
- Whether the Fall River communication described in the production is ever produced, and whether the redacted handwritten Superintendent notes on references are segregated rather than withheld whole.
- Whether the successful candidate’s identity is released, which now turns on a district that has itself confirmed finalist status.
Timeline
- August 10, 2026 — the request. Parent Data Force filed a public-records request with Middleborough Public Schools through the NextRequest portal, logged as PRR #26-450. Ten enumerated categories covering the recruitment, evaluation, selection, appointment and compensation of the successful candidate, with express exclusions for private material and permission to anonymize unsuccessful applicants.
- August 24, 2026 — the production. The district produced fifty-three pages responsive to items 1 through 7, redacted under Exemption (c), and stated there were no responsive records on file for items 8, 9 and 10 — internal communications, search and audit logs, and native electronic production.
- August 25, 2026 — the appeal. Parent Data Force appealed under G.L. c. 66, § 10A, arguing the Exemption (c) explanation was too categorical to satisfy the specificity requirement and that the production was incomplete. The appeal was assigned docket SPR26/3331.
- August 25, 2026 — the supplemental request. A separate request sought the records of the $142,000 salary, the offer and contract transmittal, the finalist-selection materials, the July 29 notation, the Fall River communication, and the reference-call notes.
- September 4, 2026 — the second response. The district answered the supplemental request, produced some material, and stated for items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 that it had no additional responsive records. It withheld and continues to withhold records relating to the other applicants, including the other finalist, and it corrected its applicant count from twenty-five to thirty.
- September 5, 2026 — the SPR26/3602 appeal. Parent Data Force appealed the September 4 response rather than folding it into SPR26/3331. It was assigned docket SPR26/3602.
- September 8, 2026 — the first determination. The Supervisor upheld the redaction of grades earned and analysis of interview responses under the personnel clause of Exemption (c), and upheld a personal phone number and email under the privacy clause. The Supervisor found it unclear how the School may redact the address under the privacy clause, and that the School had not met its burden to withhold entirely the individualized information about the twenty-four unsuccessful applicants.
- September 8, 2026 — the § 3A reconsideration request. Parent Data Force requested narrow reconsideration of one question: whether the approval of redactions to details relating to recommendations received was intended to authorize withholding external recommendations for the candidate who was ultimately hired.
- September 9, 2026 — reconsideration opened. The Public Records Division opened reconsideration in SPR26/3331.
- September 22, 2026 — the SPR26/3602 determination. The Supervisor found the School had not met its burden to redact the identifying information of the candidates who were not hired, reapplied the finalist analysis to this same search, held that unresponsive is not an exemption, and ordered a response within ten business days.
- September 22, 2026 — the district’s response. The district answered SPR26/3331 and confirmed that the person whose identity it withholds is the finalist who was not appointed, arguing that the Northampton finalist analysis does not carry over from a superintendent search to a principal search. A corrected copy was sent that night.
- September 22, 2026 — the third appeal. Parent Data Force appealed that response, opening docket SPR26/3939, which remains open and undetermined.
- September 23, 2026 — supplemental submission. A filing put the SPR26/3602 finalist holding before SPR26/3939, arguing that the Supervisor applied the governing finalist and privacy framework to this same search, and that the district has now supplied the fact that was previously missing: that the withheld person reached finalist stage.
- September 23, 2026 — a letter to district counsel. A separate letter asked whether the September 22 determination in SPR26/3602 changes the district’s position on withholding the unsuccessful finalist’s identity, given the district’s own confirmation of finalist status. It remains unanswered in the record.
- September 29, 2026 — the reconsideration determination. The Supervisor quoted G.L. c. 66, § 3A in full — recommendations submitted in support of candidates who are hired, for the position to which they apply, shall be considered public records — and ordered the School to confirm that its withheld recommendation material is not § 3A public records, within ten business days.
Key records from the search
Eight unaltered crops of the primary documents: the ten request categories, both district response letters, and the three Supervisor determinations. The three determination PDFs and the two response-letter PDFs are crop sources only and are not published as downloads.
Add to this record
If you hold a record from this matter — a district response, a determination, a filing, or a copy of something the district has since produced — send it to us. Corrections to anything published here are welcome, and we will report the district’s § 3A response and any SPR26/3939 determination as soon as they issue.