Randy Paris v. Mount Greylock Regional School District (SPR 20192125)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supe111isor ofR ecords October 31, 2019 SPR19/2125 Stacie A. Vigiard Records Access Officer Mount. Greylock Regional School District 1781 Cold Spring Rd. Williamstown, MA 01267 Dear Ms. Vigiard: I have received the petition of Randy 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 September 9, 2019 Mr. Paris requested "all emails or text messages between Superintendent Grady and Principal Wiley [i]n the month of September 2018 in regards to anything to do with Lanseborough Elementary school and its employees." The District responded with a letter dated September 19, 2019. Mr. Paris objects to this response and this appealed was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. Current appeal In a response dated September 19th the District indicates that Mr. Paris's brother, Richard 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

Stacie A. Vigiard SPR19/2125 Page 2 October 31, 2019 Paris, made a public records request on June 18, 2019. You assert that "[y] our request of all emails or text messages between Superintendent Grady and Principal Wiley in the month of September 2018 was part of your brother's larger request made on June 18, 2019 cited above." You note that "[y]our brother was given a fee estimate[] on July 1, 2019 (which was not paid). As your request is part of a larger request of your brother with the intention of circumventing the estimated collection fee, your request is denied. If you wish to access the information requested you can submit payment in the amount of the fee estimate in the enclosed June 18, 2019 · request." In his appeal petition Mr. Paris asserts, in part, "I submitted a request for a public record and they are refusing to hand over such records to me, because they say it is a part of another individual[']s request. By law my request should stand on its own." 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 ofreceipt of the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(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, § IO(b). The June 13th request cited in the District's seeks the following records: "[c]opies of all emails, texts and or phone conversations between Superintendent [K]im Grady and principal Wiley pertaining to [L]anesboro Elementary [S]chool and any pertaining to Rick Paris from June 2018 thru Sept 2018." Mr. Paris's September 9th request seeks "all emails or text messages · between Superintendent Grady and Principal Wiley [i]n the month of September 2018 in regards to anything to do with Lan[es]borough Elementary school and its employees." Based on the wording of the above requests, it appears Paris's September 9th request seeks records that vary in scope and timeframe from the June 13th request. Therefore, I find Mr. Paris's September 9th request is a new request that requires a response in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(i)-(ix). The District must provide such a response. Fee estimates A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d ). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for black and white copies for both single and double-sided copies of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 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. G. L. c. 66, § IO(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id.

Stacie A. Vigiard SPR19/2125 Page 3 October 31, 2019 However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). 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). In addition, a records access officer (RAO) may not charge a fee unless the RAO provides a written response within 10 business days following the receipt of the request in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § lO(b). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(e). Although the District's response dated September 19th may have been provided within 10 business days of receipt of Mr. Paris's September 9th request, it is unclear whether the September 19th response complies with G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(i)-(ix) for the purposes of being able to assess a fee under G. L. c. 66, § 10(e ). Therefore, I find the Department must demonstrate whether it responded to September 9th request in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § lO(b), (e) and 950 C.M.R 32.06(2)( C ). Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Mr. Paris with a response to 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, ~r~ Supervisor of Records cc: Randy Paris