Rick Paris v. Mount Greylock Regional School District (SPR 20191038)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records June 4, 2019 SPR19/1038 Jonathan Nopper Records Access Officer Mount Greylock Regional School District Office of the Superintendent 1781 Cold Springs Road Williamstown, MA 01267 Dear Mr. Nopper: I have received the petition of Rick Paris appealing the response of the Mount Greyl ock Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, on March 18, 2019, Mr. Paris requested "all phone conversations, emails, and text messages between Superintendent Kim Grady and School Committee member Regina DiLego regarding [Mr. Paris] and/or Lanesborough Elementary School between the dates of December 2017 and March 13, 2019." Prior appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR19/833 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) (May 7, 2019). On April 16, 2019, the District responded to Mr. Paris' request with a fee estimate. The District estimated that it will take 8 hours at a rate of $25 per hour for "the Superintendent to parse through emails between herself and Regina DiLego in order to ascertain any and all that are subject to release pursuant to this request." Unsatisfied with the April 16th fee estimate, Mr. Paris petitioned this office, and appeal SPRI 9/833 was opened. In my May ih determination, I found that the District must explain why eight hours will be needed to produce the records. Specifically, the District was required to describe how much time will be needed to search for the records versus how much time will be needed to segregate and/or redact. The District was also required to explain whether the redactions are required by law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(iii). It was unclear whether the District is a municipality with a population of 20,000 people or less. In addition, it was unclear whether the $25 hourly rate being charged is that of the lowest-paid clerical or professional employee capable of performing the task. As a result, I ordered the District to provide Mr. Paris with a revised response, in a manner 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

Jonathan Nopper SPR19/1038 Page2 June 4, 2019 consistent with the Public Records Law, its Regulations, and my May ih order. Current appeal - District's May 20, 2019 response In its May 20th response the District indicates, "[n]o fees will be [assessed] for copying of the requested documents because we can upload the information to the email address you provided. However, please be advised that we will be assessing a fee for the staff time required to fulfill your request. I have prepared an item by item breakdown of estimates for the search, collection, and reproduction of the records you request." The District's estimate, with the exception of two hours of time waived from the 8 hour total, is unchanged. The District assessed 6 hours of time at $25 per hour for a total of $150. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(iii) (Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less). The District explained that it has waived the first two hours of time from the 8 hour estimate because the District has a population over 20,000. Therefore, the number of hours assessed by the District is 6 hours at $25 per hour for a total of $150. The District's May 20th estimate also indicates that no fees have been assessed for copies, because the records will be provided electronically to Mr. Paris' email address. As a result of the District's May 20th response, Mr. Paris petitioned the Supervisor, and the current appeal was opened. In his petition, Mr. Paris states, "I believe the fee is still estimated high and that they didn't break down the fee assessment as asked by the state. They also did not explain or describe how much time is needed to search for records versus how much time to segregate and or redact." The District has not explained why the estimated time is necessary to produce the records. The May 20th estimate states that a preliminary search resulted in 937 emails that may be responsive to the request, but the District did not explain how much time was expended for the search, or for the compilation and reproduction. I find that the District must break down the estimate to show the numbers of hours of time assessed for each of the necessary tasks. A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g) provides that "petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records." To the best of my knowledge the District did not file a petition to assess fees for segregation and/or redaction. The District's estimate states, "[t]his estimate takes into account the time it will take the Superintendent to parse through emails between herself and Regina DiLego in order to ascertain any and all that are subject to release pursuant to this request." It is unclear whether the District is assessing a fee for segregation and/or redaction of the records. The District cannot charge a fee

Jonathan Nopper SPR19/1038 Page 3 June 4, 2019 for segregation or redaction unless it is required by law. The District is required to explain whether any time was assessed for segregation and/or redaction by law. Therefore, I find that the District still has not met its burden of specificity in providing the fee estimate to Mr. Paris pertaining to his request. The District must revise its estimate in accordance with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Order Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Paris with a revised estimate for the request, in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Rick Paris