Belmont Parents v. Belmont, Town of (SPR 20190959)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords May 21, 2019 SPR19/0959 Ellen O'Brien Cushman, CMMC Town Clerk Belmont Public Schools Town of Belmont 644 Pleasant Street Belmont, MA 024 78 Dear Ms. Cushman: I have received your petition on behalf of the Town of Belmont (Town) seeking an extension of time to furnish copies of a requested record, or any portion thereof. G. L. c. 66, § lO(c). As required by law, the Town furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. Id. Specifically, on March 8, 2019, the requestor asked for " ... copies of any correspondence received by [the School] concerning the conduct of ... a teacher in the Department of Fine Arts at [the School] for school years 2013-2014 through 2018-2019." The requestor noted that the request should include correspondence received by several identified individuals Previous Appeal This request was subject to a previous appeal. See SPR19/0669 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 10, 2019). In my April 10th determination, I ordered the Town to review the records, redact where necessary, and provide the requestor with responsive records, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. Pelltwnsjor an extenswn oj llme 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; 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

Ellen O'Brien Cushman SPR19/0959 Page 2 May 21, 2019 (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; (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, § lO(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 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Current petition In the Town's petition dated April 25, 2019 the Town requests "a Thirty-day Extension" to respond to the April 10th determination. See SPR19/0669 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 10, 2019). The Town states "[w]e are currently in the ten day period under the order within the April 10th determination, a period that expires April 30, 2019." The Town explains the work to be completed includes "[s]eperating, reviewing, and redacting responsive emails" and "[g]iven the sensitive and possibly confidential nature of the information to be viewed, and in light of the Federal Stature, the Family Education Right to Privacy, a qualified Human Resources professional must perform these tasks." The Town further explains "a total of 52,021 + emails have been segregated" and the Town estimates that they can review and redact "at a rate of 200 emails per hour." The Town states "[t]he total estimate is 280 hours of work" and "would take a professional HR person 7 weeks at 40 hours a week to accomplish, without performing any other work for the School District at this critical time of year of HR." The Town provided a cost estimate to the requestor of "282 hours - 2 hours free=280 hours x $25= $7,000."

Ellen O'Brien Cushman SPR19/0959 Page 3 May 21, 2019 I find that in light of the need segregate and redact the records, the scope of the redaction, and capacity of the Town in fulfilling the request, the Town has established good cause to permit an extension of time of 30 business days. G. L. c. 66 § 10(c )(i)-(iv). Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Town is granted an extension of 30 business days to produce responsive records. The records must be provided consistent with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the Town's response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Additionally, the requestor may seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the superior court under G. L. c. 66, § lOA(c). This office encourages the parties to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b )(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). If there is an updated fee estimate, it must be in compliance with this determination, the Public Records Law, and its Access Regulations. Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: "Belmont Parents"