Ronald Alexander v. Wellesley, Town of - Board of Selectmen (SPR 20170421)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary ofthe Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records January 17, 2017 Meghan C. Jop, AICP Assistant Executive Director of General Government Services Town of Wellesley 525 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Wellesley, MA 02482 Dear Ms. Jop: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Wellesley (Town) to charge for time spent segregating or redacting public records in responding to requests made by Ronald Alexander on January 5, 2017 and January 6, 2017. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the municipality furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor on January 11, 2017. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( d)(iv)(2). The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose; or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. Id. Analysis The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality's petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. Id. It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. 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

Meghan C. Jop, AICP Page 2 January 17, 2017 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. January 5 requests In the Town's petition dated January 11, 2017 you explain Mr. Alexander made two (2) requests on January 5, 2017 for the Superintendent's calendar for 2014 and 2016. You indicate Mr. Alexander made another request on January 6, 2017 for complaints about coaches and a letter related to bullying. You explain responding to the two January 5 requests "is anticipated to take one (1) hour per year, for a total of two (2) hours" and "[a] s such, the School Department will be providing redacted copies of these documents at no cost to Mr. Alexander." January 6 requests With respect to the January 6 request for "bullying complaints," the Town claims responsive records require redaction pursuant to Exemption (a). You indicate "portions of the responsive documents are protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Massachusetts Student Records Regulations." If the requester takes issue with the redactions made to the records, the requestor can petition the Supervisor on the substance of the Town's response within 90 days of receipt. 950 CMR 32.08(1). The Town explains "the School has approximately fifty (50) pages of documents responsive to this request. The School has estimated that it will take approximately one (1) minute per page to review and redact protected student information from these documents." The Town indicates the hourly rate being assessed is $25 an hour and "[t]hus, the total cost to perform this search and segregation is fifty dollars ($50)." You explain the Town's petition "is limited to seeking authority to treat these three requests as a single request and to charge for time spent segregating and redacting documents in excess of two (2) hours." I understand an attorney on my staff contacted you about this matter. Conclusion Although portions of the responsive records may fall under an exemption to the Public Records Law, it is unclear how a fee estimate of $50 is reasonable. First, whereas the two (2) January 5 requests are for records distinct from those requested on January 6, I decline to treat these three requests as a single request. As such, the Town has not established how more than two (2) hours is needed to comply with each request. See G. L. c. 66, § 1 0( d)(iii); 950 CMR 32.07(2)(m). Second, since the Town estimates it will take one (1) minute to review each of the fifty (50) pages of records at $25 an hour, it is unclear why it would cost $50 to comply with the January 6 request. Therefore, I find the Town has not met its burden to establish that the fee estimate of $50 is reasonable under the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Accordingly,

Meghan C. Jop, AICP Page 3 January 17, 2017 the Town's petition is denied. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Ronald Alexander Eric Reustle, Esq.