Catherine Thorp v. Medfield, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20222773)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 16, 2022 SPR22/2773 Michael La Francesca Records Access Officer Medfield Public Schools 459 Main Street Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Mr. La Francesca: I have received the petition of Catherine Thorp appealing the response of the Medfield Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On October 3, 2022, Ms. Thorp stated: This is a request for all public records since Oct. 1, 2020 to date (Oct. 3, 2022) related to 2022 changes to the 3rd grade Rocky Woods event, including, but not limited to eliminating children’s costumes and replacing them with t-shirts. Records should be sure to include, but not be limited to: [1] Correspondence between [an identified individual] and other parties[;] [2] Correspondence between members of DEI and any school staff[;] [3] Correspondence between [an identified individual], [another identified individual], and any school committee members[;] [4] Hard-copy documents representing formal agreements about the event[;] [5] E-mails that touch on or summarize related phone or in-person discussions[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR22/2554 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 23, 2022). In my November 23rd determination, I ordered the School to provide Ms. Thorp with a response. On November 28, 2022, the School responded. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Thorp petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR22/2773, was opened as a result. Fee estimate – municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except 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

Michael La Francesca SPR22/2773 Page 2 December 16, 2022 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). The School’s November 28th Response In its November 28, 2022 response, the School states that it will assess a fee of $25 for uploading the documents. The School asserts: . . . after searching curriculum data, the School Department estimates that in order to convert these records into a file format in which they can be sent electronically, the School Department will spend approximately one (1) hour uploading the records into a program allowing them to be sent. Additionally, the School states it will assess a fee of $25.00 for searching for the responsive records. The School argues: The request spanned a two-year period and asked for “any correspondence between [an identified individual] and other parties, correspondence between members of DEI and any school staff, Correspondence between [an identified individual], [an identified individual], and any school committee members, hard copy documents representing formal agreements about the event, e-mails, text and social media messages and hard copy documents that touch on or summarize related phone or in-person discussion. To maintain compliance with state law and fulfill this request we would be required to do a search for any correspondence, e- mail, hard copy, or text over a two-year period involving multiple people. Those records in electronic form need to be identified, printed, reviewed, redacted, and copied. Hard copies of documents would also require identification, print, review, redaction, and copies. As such, the time and expense cost to the district is not materially affected whether the records are electronic or hard copy.

Michael La Francesca SPR22/2773 Page 3 December 16, 2022 Further, the School states: The fee estimate calculation estimates that it will take approximately thirty (30) seconds per record to complete its review, compile, segregate and reproduce the records sought in this request. The total estimate of three hours for review, compilation, segregation, and reproduction is not significantly altered by the removal of the compilation of the records. It is our assertion that the 30 seconds per record is very generous as it is likely to take more than thirty seconds per record to complete the review, segregation, and reproduction. The School Department estimates that it will take approximately thirty (30) seconds per page for segregation and redaction time. There are approximately (81) pages to review and determine whether any exemptions under the Public Records Law or privileges apply. As a result, the School Department estimates a total of (1) hour for segregation plus (.05) per page for a total of $29.05 Current Appeal In her appeal, Ms. Thorp argues: The Public Records Law clearly states that the RAO cannot charge for redaction and segregation without first petitioning you within 10 days of the public records request, and that step did not happen, and so those costs should not be factored into complying with my request. As you yourself stated, which is 100% accurate: The only redaction that I believe would be needed to be responsive to my public records request relates to personal e-mail addresses from community members. School e-mails are already public. There’s no conceivable way the information I requested would have any other exemptions. Furthermore, the volume of community e-mails on just ONE topic – Rocky Woods – as requested, would be so small that the time required to search for correspondence should be extremely limited and guided by input by the specific parties involved. . . . The Public Records Request is already very limited in scope based on the topic (Rocky Woods), and should be easily fulfilled by focusing on communication involving the superintendent and principal as a key starting point. Although the School has estimated that the process of reviewing and redacting the responsive documents for production will take 3 hours of employee time, it continues to be unclear under what exemptions the School is redacting the records. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The School must clarify if redactions are required by law.

Michael La Francesca SPR22/2773 Page 4 December 16, 2022 Please be advised that the School cannot charge a requestor for the time it takes to search for responsive records based on the organization and management of its records. Public records must be maintained and kept in a manner that allows access by the public, as they are subject to mandatory disclosure upon request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a); see G. L. c. 66, § l2; see also Reinstein v. Police Comm’r of Boston, 378 Mass. 281, 289-90 (1979). Consequently, it is unclear how the School could assess a fee for uploading the records into a program which would allow the records to be sent. Further, it is unclear how the School may assess a fee for identifying, printing, reviewing, redacting and copying both hard copies and electronic copies of the responsive records. The School must clarify these matters. I continue to encourage the requestor and the School to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. The requestor may wish to narrow the scope of the request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (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, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Catherine Thorp