Sarah Spofford v. Quincy, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20220586)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records March 16, 2022 SPR22/0586 Allison G. Cox Records Access Officer Quincy Public Schools 34 Coddington Street Quincy, MA 02169 Dear Ms. Cox: On March 10, 2022, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Quincy Public Schools (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, Attorney Sarah Spofford. Id. On February 24, 2022, Attorney Spofford requested: 1. All public records indicating or reflecting referrals to Quincy Police Department (QPD) from QPS administrators, teachers, students, staff, or any other QPS affiliate; 2. All public records indicating or reflecting school-related arrests conducted in QPS buildings or on QPS property; 3. All public records indicating or reflecting school-related delinquency or criminal summonses issued as a result of conduct occurring at or near a QPS building, on QPS property, or at a QPS-sponsored event; 4. Any and all call logs indicating or reflecting phone calls from QPS faculty and staff, including any school resource officers, to QPD; 5. Any and all emails indicating or reflecting communication from QPS faculty and staff, including any school resource officers, to QPD; 6. Any and all text messages indicating or reflecting communication from QPS faculty and staff, including any school resource officers, to QPD; 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

Allison G. Cox SPR22/0586 Page 2 March 16, 2022 7. Any policies, protocols, memoranda, other documents or trainings on the use of referrals to QPD from QPS; 8. Training records pertaining to adolescent brain development, trauma, and/or the juvenile justice system; 9. Training records pertaining to race, gender, socioeconomic status and/or implicit bias; 10. All public records authored, co-authored, investigated by, or otherwise affiliated with QPS School Resource Officers, including but not limited to police reports or incident reports submitted to the QPD. The time period for each request is from August 2018 to the present. 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. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. - The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b).

Allison G. Cox SPR22/0586 Page 3 March 16, 2022 Extension of Time to Produce Responsive Records In its March 10th petition, the School requests “…an additional 30 business days beyond the time specified under the statute (25 business days) - for a total of 55 business days from the date of receipt of payment for the work, to respond to the request.” The School notes that responsive documents have been provided with respect to “…items 7, 8, and 9 above. The [School] has no records responsive to items number 4 and 10.” In a preliminary search for records, the School has identified “…approximately 19,587 pages of records in its possession which are responsive to [Attorney Spofford’s] request. Further, given the vague nature of items 1, 2, and 3 of [the] request, responsive documents may be contained in student files.” The School states, “[d]uring the requested time period, the [School] has a student census of approximately 9,500 students per academic year, so that would be a total of approximately 15,000 student records to review, each of which with multiple pages…Given the broad scope of the request, the volume of potentially responsive records, and the sensitive and confidential nature of the subject matter, which will result in the necessity for detailed review and redaction of the records, the [School] submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business day.” I find in light of the need to collect and segregate the request, as well as the capacity of the School to produce the request without an extension, and the efforts already undertaken by the School to provide responsive records, the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(ii). The School is granted an extension of 30 business days. Please note the time may begin to run once the School receives payment. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). Petitions to Assess Fees 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 (Supervisor) 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). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv).

Allison G. Cox SPR22/0586 Page 4 March 16, 2022 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. 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. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). 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, § 10(d)(i). 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 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). 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). Current Petition In its March 10th petition, the School requests “…that the Supervisor authorize it to charge a fee to produce the records sought, as set forth below, because the responsive records implicate exemptions under the Public Records Law, and will require detailed review and redaction prior to production.” Citing Exemption (a), the School notes that the records responsive to the request “…will likely contain personally identifying information of public school students who enjoy mandated confidentiality; indeed, such documents, if released, would reveal the identities and information on their educational programming. As a result, these records are exempt from disclosure

Allison G. Cox SPR22/0586 Page 5 March 16, 2022 pursuant to Exemption (a) because, as noted by [Champa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86 (2015)], state and federal regulations compel the [School] to protect educational records from disclosure. Specifically, they are protected by the Federal Education Rights Privacy Act, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 34A to 34H, and 603 CMR 23.00 et. seq.” Conclusion I find the School has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, given that under the Public Records Law the School may permissibly charge for segregation and redaction required by law, I find it unnecessary to opine on the School’s petition to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Sarah Spofford, Esq.