Joe Ronayne v. Winchester, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20210916)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records April 22, 2021 SPR21/0916 Judith A. Evans, Ed. D. Records Access Officer Winchester Public Schools 40 Samoset Road Winchester, MA 01890 Dear Dr. Evans: I have received the petitions of Joe Ronayne appealing the response of the Winchester Public Schools (School/District) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66, §10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On February 4, 2021, Mr. Ronayne requested, “…all emails to or from [named person] or anyone that works for her Teachers’ Workshop in the past 2 years.” Previous Appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. See SPR21/0521 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 12, 2021); SPR21/0659 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 31, 2021). In my March 31st Determination, I requested the School to clarify the fee estimate. The School responded on April 8, 2021. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Ronayne appealed and SPR21/0916 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, § 10A(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, § 10(b)(iv) (written response must “identify any records, categories of records or portions of records that the agency or municipality intends to withhold, and provide the specific reasons for such withholding is based…”); 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). 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

Judith A. Evans, Ed.D. SPR2/0916 Page 2 April 22, 2021 Fees -Municipalities If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be · provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records ----- custodian must provide the responsive records. 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, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 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, § 10(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. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per how if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(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, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Petitions relating to fees must be submitted to the Supervisor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). The School’s April 8th Fee Estimate In its April 8th response, the School states that, “… [t]here were approximately 23,128 documents that fall within [the] search parameters. The good faith fee estimate associated with the compilation, review, possible redaction, and production of these records is as follows: Item Estimated Time Rate Estimated Cost Review/redaction time 386 hours $25.00 per hour $9,650.00 Credit for first two hours 2 hours $25.00 per hour $50.00 Total estimated cost $9,600.00 The School opined that, “… [t]his estimate is based on three hundred and eighty-six (386) hours spent reviewing and redacting the responsive documents … and it will take an average of 1 – 1.5 minutes to review and redact each page.”

Judith A. Evans, Ed.D. SPR2/0916 Page 3 April 22, 2021 The School further asserted, “… [Mr. Ronayne’s assertion] that there should be no student records related to this request … is inaccurate in that the responsive documents actually contain education record information and personally identifiable information (‘PII’) related to students that must be redacted in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. Specifically, the documents contain references to specific District students, their individualized education plans (‘IEP’), and other education information, all of which constitutes education record information and PII under FERPA and 603 CMR 23.00. The District is required by law to redact these documents of any student education record information or PII before producing them …” The School cited Exemption (a) to redact the FERPA information. In its fee estimate, the School stated, “[a]lthough the public records law limits the District to assessing a maximum rate of $25.00 per hour, please note that the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee qualified to complete your request exceeds that rate.” The School opined in part, “[i]f the scope is narrowed the fee estimate will accordingly be reduced. The District is more than willing to discuss other ways to modify [the] request to reduce the fee estimate.” Current appeal In his appeal, Mr. Ronayne stated, “[t]his delay and deny tactic that Winchester is using is troubling.” Conclusion Upon review of the file, it is unclear what the basis of Mr. Ronayne’s appeal is. Mr. Ronayne is reminded that all petitions for appeal "shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor's objections to the response or failure to timely respond." 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(f). Please be aware that the request must reasonably describe the records sought. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Mr. Ronayne may wish to clarify this matter and his objections to the School’s response. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Joe Ronayne