Jeanne Teichert v. Andover, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20170868)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records July 5, 2017 SPR17/868 Paul P. Szymanski Assistant Superintendent Andover Public Schools 36R Bartlet Street Andover, MA 01810 Dear Mr. Szymanski: I have received your petition on behalfofthe Andover Public Schools (School) seeking relief from its obligation to produce responsive records, or in the alternative, an extension of time to produce the records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). As required by law, the School furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. On May 29, 2017 Ms. Teichert requested three categories of records, including "all email communication to and from every Andover Public Schools School Committee member on any district server from Jan 1, 2017 to present." In the School's petition dated June 26, 2017, you indicate "I request that you relieve the district of its obligation to respond to the May 29 request. In the alternative, I request that you grant the district the full 30 business day extension of time to respond." This petition appears to only relate to Ms. Teichert's request for emails. Petitions for an extension of time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; 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

Paul P. Szymanski SPR17/868 Page 2 July 5, 2017 (v ) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66 § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 CMR 36.06(4)(b). Request for relieff rom obligation to produce responsive records In its June 26th petition, the School indicates "Ms. Teichert has a lengthy history of filing request for records with the Andover School District, including several requests since January 2017." The Town seeks a determination "that Ms. Teichert's May 29, 2017 request is both frivolous and designed to intimidate and harass the district." The basis of this request is based on the School's belief that the request was made "for the sole purpose of harassing the district in retaliation for the district's denial of an earlier request from Ms. Teichert dated May 27, 2017." In response to this petition, Ms. Teichert indicates she is "gravely concerned that the district has discovered over six thousand private emails between school committee members on their public server within a five month period." Ms. Teichert also raises concerns regarding how the emails relate to School Committee meetings related transparency issues. Based on the information provided in the June 26th petition, I find the School has not met its burden to establish that the May 29th request for emails of the School Committee, is "part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity" as required by G. L. c. 66 § 10 ( c). Extension of time to produce responsive records The School requests that if relief from obligation to produce records is not granted, that they be given "the full 30 business day extension of time to respond." The School explains they must "review 6,000 emails-many of which contain confidential information exempted from the public records law that would require redaction to prevent unlawful disclosure." You further indicate "should the district be required to produce the records, the ability of the district to meet

Paul P. Szymanski SPR17/868 Page 3 July 5, 2017 its other obligations will be seriously burdened to such an extent I will require every,possible additional day." The School's June 12, 2017 fee estimate and related appeal (SP R17/ 803) In a response dated June 12, 2017 you provided Mrs. Teichert with a written estimate for complying with her request for emails ofthe School Committee at a total cost of$11,025.00. Ms. Teichert appealed this fee estimate and an appeal (SPR17 /803) with this office was opened as a result. I will issue a separate determination for this appeal. In the fee estimate you indicate there are approximately 6,647 responsive emails and assert "they are also likely to contain content which is exempt from disclosure based on the attorney-client privilege and ongoing collective bargaining." You state "each email record properly must be reviewed and redacted where appropriate to prevent unlawful disclosure-a process which is recognized by the Public Records Law." The School estimates "it will take approximately 4 minutes to review each of the 6,647 emails, for a total review time of 443 hours." The School assesses an hourly rate of $25.00 an hour. Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations (Regulations) all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten business days of receipt of the request. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a), (b). The response may contain, among other things, an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The School responded to Ms. Teichert's May 29th request on June lih by providing a fee estimate. By providing this fee estimate, the School complied with its requirement to provide a written response within ten business days. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(viii). Therefore, I decline to opine on the School's petition for an extension of time. See also G. L. c. 66, § lO(a)(iii) (the records access officer must provide responsive records within ten business days, provided that it receives payment of a reasonable fee as set forth in subsection (d)). As noted above, Ms. Teichert has appealed the School's fee estimate and this office will issue a determination regarding its compliance with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. The School may seek another petition upon receipt of my determination. See G. L. c. 66 § 10 ( c) (an agency or municipality may petition for an extension of time within 10 business days after receipt of a determination by the Supervisor that the requested record constitutes a public record). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the School's petition for relief of its obligation to respond to Ms. Teichert's request is denied at this time. Further, I decline to opine on the School's request for an extension oftime to produce records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii). Ms. Teichert may appeal the substantive nature of the School's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Paul P. Szymanski SPR17/868 Page 4 July 5, 2017 Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca s~ Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jeanne Teichert