Jeanne Teichert v. Andover, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20171042)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords August 10,2017 SPR17/1042 Paul Szymanski Assistant Superintendent Town of Andover Public Schools 36R Bartlet Street Andover, MA 01810 Dear Mr. Szymanski: I have received the petition of Jeanne Teichert appealing the response of the Town of Andover Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, Mrs. Teichert requested a copy of all email communications to and from every School Committee member on any School server from January 1, 2017 to May 29, 2017. Prior appeal and determination The requested emails were the subject of a prior appeal and determination. See SPR17/803 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 5, 2017). In my July determination, I asked that the School explain its estimated time of four (4 ) minutes per email for review of each email and whether the $25.00 per hour is the lowest hourly rate that may be assessed. I also asked the School to suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of Mrs. Teichert's request, or offer to assist her in modifying the scope of the request in order to enable a more efficient and affordable production of records. The School provided a July 19th response. Mrs. Teichert appealed the twenty-five ($25.00) dollar hourly rate, and does not believe that there is restricted information within the content of the email records. July 19th supplemental response The School provided Mrs. Teichert with a July 19th supplemental response to the request, revising its original June 12th written estimate from $11,025.00 to $5,475.00. The School previously explained that the Information Technology employees searched for and identified 6,64 7 emails that are responsive to Mrs. Teichert's request. You explained that while the most capable individuals such as yourself and the School's Legal Counsel will likely review the 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 Szymanski SPR17/1042 Page2 August 9, 2017 emails and redact the restricted information, the School is not assessing your hourly rate or that of Legal Counsel, but the maximum of twenty-five dollar ($25.00) per hour rate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In addition, you explained that you reassessed how much time the School believes is necessary to review each email for the restricted information and redact that information. The School revised the amount of time from 4 minutes per email to 2 minutes per email. The July 19th response also suggested to Mrs. Teichert that she could modify herrequest by: 1. Narrowing the date range for the search, as limiting the date range will produce many fewer records for review, 2. Identifying the specific individuals to/from whom Mrs. Teichert would like to retrieve emails and provide email addresses for those individuals, 3. Informing the district if there are specific search terms she would like to be used, and 4. Contacting your office for assistance in modifying the scope of her request. On August gth and August 9th, a Public Records Division attorney spoke with you and Caroline Thibeault, Esq. of Deutsch Williams, the School's Legal Counsel regarding the estimate and the restricted information that may be within the content of the emails. It is my understanding that the School had the Town's IT personnel search for and identify the number of emails responsive to Mrs. Teichert's request for every email of every member of the School Committee. You informed Mrs. Teichert in the June response that IT personnel informed you that there are approximately 6,64 7 emails. You informed this office that while the School has listed search and compilation on the June and July estimates, the School is not charging Mrs. Teichert for the search and compilation, it is only charging Mrs. Teichert for the review and redaction of the emails. Due to the number of emails that must be read and a determination made whether anything within each email must be redacted due to content that is restricted by statute, the School believes that two (2) minutes per email is reasonable. While the School has suggested ways in which Mrs. Teichert could modify or narrow her request to reduce the costs, to date Mrs. Teichert has not done so. In speaking with Attorney Thibeault, a Public Records Division attorney was informed that the emails may contain information that is restricted by law such as, student record information; personally identifiable information of students or parents under FERP A; collective bargaining information; information that may be exempt from disclosure under the Open Meeting Law; and/or advice under the common law attorney-client privilege. The School was informed that it may charge for review of the emails to assess whether redaction of any information within the content of the emails is restricted by law, or otherwise if 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 CMR 32.06(4). The School's July 19th response states that Mrs. Teichert will be provided with the specific reasons for any emails that may be withheld or any content within the emails that may be withheld under any law that restricts disclosu~e of that content. The School must provide a

Paul Szymanski SPR1711042 Page 3 August 9, 2017 detailed response or index to explain any redaction of restricted information within the content of the email, or any emails that are withheld in their entirety. G. L. c. 66, § lOA(a). Finally, Mrs. Teichert suggests in her petition that the emails are vitally important for the public to see in order to ensure transparency in the School Department. She states, "I believe the emails should be made widely available to all taxpayers and parents of children in the Andover Public Schools by disclosing them on the school committee website, and that nobody should be required to pay any money to view these emails." Mrs. Teichert is advised that while a municipal RAO may waive costs, the Public Records Law does not require that the RAO do so. Conclusion The School has significantly reduced the fees by waiving charges for search and compilation time and reducing the time needed to segregate and redact records containing information exempt by law. Mrs. Teichert has been provided with guidance on how to narrow her broad request. While she has not narrowed her request at this time, she is encouraged to do so. Accordingly, I find that the School has met its burden of providing and explaining its reduced estimate for the responsive emails and that the estimate is reasonable. The School is advised that once Mrs. Teichert pays the estimate, the School must commence reviewing and redacting the emails and subsequently provide Mrs. Teichert with the responsive emails. If Mrs. Teichert 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, § 1O (b) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Jeanne Teichert Caroline Thibeault, Esq.