Frank Visco v. Athol-Royalston Regional School District (SPR 20212703)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records October 20, 2021 SPR21/2703 Superintendent Darcy Fernandes Records Access Officer Athol-Royalston Regional School District 1062 Pleasant Street Athol, MA 01331 Dear Superintendent Fernandes: On October 14, 2021, I received your petition on behalf of the Athol-Royalston Regional School District (School) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, it is my understanding that the School furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Frank Visco. Id. On October 6, 2021, Mr. Visco requested “…records regarding funding, grants, stipends, loans, etc. that the [School] has received in regards to COVID-19 from 2020 - 2022. The request includes all correspondence, emails, files, applications, determinations and other documents regarding this funding.” Petition for an Extension of Time 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; (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. 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

Supt. Darcy Fernandes SPR21/2703 Page 2 October 20, 2021 G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Petition to Assess Fees 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 hour 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). Current Petition In its October 14th petition, the School states, “I am writing to request an extension to a public records request because more time is needed to provide records. I am also writing to request the ability to charge for time spent redacting information in this request.” The School notes it “…has started to collect records for responding to this request, and in just reviewing three specific District email addresses, has already found 3,600 emails that need to be reviewed for responsiveness and potential redactions. This number does not include the attachments to those emails and is not even the complete amount of documentation that will be collected in order to respond to this particular request.” The School contends that “[r]edactions will be necessary for information such as District account numbers and/or any cell phone numbers that may have been exchanged in any emails, and/or any student information that may be contained in any of the records.” The School posits that “[r]eviewing all of these documents for potential redactions will be timely. As such, [the School request] additional time to comply with this response and the ability to charge for time spent redacting information in this request.” The School notes, “[i]f additional time is granted, the [School] does intend to send Mr. Visco the documents in batches as they are reviewed and redacted to ensure that the documents are being provided to him in as timely a manor as possible.”

Supt. Darcy Fernandes SPR21/2703 Page 3 October 20, 2021 In a follow up email dated October 19, 2021, the School writes, “[o]ur district tech person has just finished reviewing 2166 emails and narrowed them down to 566 which have to be reviewed by the lawyer and redacted. Our tech person has already done 29 hours of work, and there are another 1466 emails to go through and filter. Because he did 59.63% of them, it will be approximately 19.62 more hours to go for him, but this only covers the time period of January 1, 2021, to October 12, 2021. Mr. Visco’s request includes ESSER funding documents from 2020. Therefore, a rough guess would be that it would take our tech person another 30-40 hours to collect and go through the 2020 emails as well. Our attorney will then need to go through all the collected and responsive documents to determine if any account numbers or sensitive information needs to be redacted.” Conclusion I find that the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). I hereby grant the School an extension of 30 business days to furnish copies of records responsive to Mr. Visco’s request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). With respect to the School’s petition to assess fees, I find the School has met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for the time spent to segregate and redact these requested records. Please note, Mr. Visco has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Frank Visco Jody Leazott