Chrissy Ryan v. Amherst-Pelham Regional School Districts (SPR 20192138)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 30, 2019 SPR19/2138 Debbie Westmoreland Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Town of Amherst 170 Chestnut Street Amherst, MA O1 002 Dear Ms. Westmoreland: I have received the petition of Chrissy Ryan appealing the response of the Amherst Pelham Regional School District (School) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 1O A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms. Ryan requested "Emails between Superintendent Mike Morris and Amherst School Committee Chair Anastasia Ordonez and emails between Superintendent Mike Morris and Town Manager Paul Bockelman and emails between Amherst Public Schools Finance Director Sean Mangano and Town Manager Paul Bockelman." Previous Appeals This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR 19/1885 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2019). In my September 26th determination I ordered the School to provide Ms. Ryan with a response to her request for records. The School responded on October 9, 2019, providing Ms. Ryan with a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the response she received from the District, Ms. Ryan petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR 19/2138, was opened as a result. It is my understanding Ms. Ryan's issue is limited to whether the District may charge for time to review and redact the requested records. 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 a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(i). 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

Debbie Westmoreland SPR19/2138 Page 2 October 30, 2019 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as pa1i 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. 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 G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The School's October 9111 Fee Estimate In its October 9th fee estimate, the School asse1is its "need to review and redact the responsive email records per the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Acts and its regulations ... and the personnel records statute." The School explains "[a]s Chair of the Amherst School Committee, Ms. Ordonez's and Dr. Morris' correspondence sometimes deals with student-related and staff-related matters." Further, the School explains "[a]s a Department of the Town of Amherst, school officials have occasion to correspond with Town Manager Bockelman regarding student-related and staff related matters. Each email must be reviewed to ensure such information is properly redacted prior to release." Based on the School's October 9th supplemental resp~nse that provides additional information regarding the need to review and redact these records pursuant to the Family Education and Privacy Rights Act, as it operates through Exemption (a), I find the School has met its burden to establish it may assess time for segregating and redacting the records because these redactions are required by law. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Conclusion I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If necessary, this office encourages both paiiies to communicate further to enable the School to provide a more refined search for Ms. Ryan. See G. L. c. 66, § 1O (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 agency to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). ~ .Rebecca S. Murray~ Supervisor of Records cc: Chrissy Ryan