Rachel Rediker Roy v. Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (SPR 20241656)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 10, 2024 SPR24/1656 Elizabeth M. McCoy Superintendent of Schools Dover-Sherborn Regional School District Superintendent’s Office 157 Farm Street Dover, MA 02030 Dear Superintendent McCoy: On June 3, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (District) seeking a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, the District furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On May 23, 2024, Rachel Rediker Roy requested the following records: [1.] Documents and records related to Dover-Sherborn’s anti-bullying program, including faculty trainings (dates included), investigative procedures and protocols (including internal emails related to the drafting and enforcement of such procedures and protocols); and training curriculum and materials[;] [2.] All internal emails regarding the school’s anti-bullying policy and program, including correspondence regarding compliance or lack of compliance with the policy or state laws[;] [3.] Any complaints (formal and informal, email or written) received by the district regarding the quality or effectiveness of the antibullying [sic] program, and internal emails regarding the response thereto[;] [4.] All internal emails and notes related to the investigation or complaint of any cyberbullying incident that occurred in May 2024[;] [5.] All email correspondence between the Dover Sherborn School District personnel and the Dover Police department in May 2024[;] [6.] Any reports or data demonstrating the number of bullying complaints received by the Dover-Sherborn district including: [a.] Whether the investigations were substantiated or not[;] [b.] Detailed outcomes of these investigations…[;] 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

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR24/1658 Page 2 June 10, 2024 [7.] Complaints (formal or informal, written or by email) from the public regarding the school’s failure to satisfactorily address bullying issues or incidents[;] [8.] The complete text of the district’s anti-bullying policy, including any revisions or amendments since 2020[;] [9,] Annual reports submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) related to bullying incidents and compliance[;] [10.] Anonymized records of disciplinary actions taken in response to bullying incidents and the procedures for disciplinary actions related to bullying[;] [11.] Minutes from school board meetings or other relevant committees where bullying policies or incidents were discussed[;] [12.] Results of any surveys conducted among parents and students regarding the perception and effectiveness of the school’s anti-bullying efforts[;] [13.] Any external audits, reviews, or assessments of the district’s anti-bullying program and compliance with state laws[;] [14.] Attendance records and materials from staff training sessions on anti- bullying policies and procedures[;] [15.] Detailed logs of all reported bullying incidents or mistreatment, including dates, descriptions, actions take, and outcomes…[;] [16.] Any communications with the Massachusetts DESE regarding bullying policies, incidents, and compliance[;] [17.] Results from school surveys that address issues of bullying and student safety. Please note, in an email to this office and the District on June 3, 2024, Ms. Rediker Roy opposed the District’s petition. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). 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 or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that the request is not for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR24/1658 Page 3 June 10, 2024 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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 2 (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). Current Petition In its petition, the District requests to charge fees in excess of $25 per hour and states that Ms. Rediker Roy’s request is “estimated to take nine hours to complete.” The District goes on to provide the following in support of its petition: Given that the only individuals capable of searching administrator emails and student files across all four buildings are the Director of Student Services and building principals, [the District is] petitioning that we be allowed to charge the administrative hourly rate of $75. This public records request… is not capable of being completed by an administrative assistant[.] In a subsequent email to this office dated June 3, 2024, the District explains that, “for documents that are close at hand and only require pulling electronic or paper files and duplicating them, we have never/do not charge.” The District further states: [T]he records requested by Ms. Rediker Roy require an administrator to recall and identify, “search for and compile, segregate, redact or reproduce.” They are not housed in any single location, instead across multiple district schools, multiple

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR24/1658 Page 4 June 10, 2024 administrator email accounts, multiple administrator electronic drives and multiple administrator paper files, all only accessible by an administrator. In this case, the request involves the Director of Student Services and the four building principals (hourly rates range from $81-$84). Therefore, [the District] respectfully petition[s] the “hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required” be that of an administrator, not an administrative assistant. Although the District has described the scope of the work required to complete the request, based on the District’s petition, I find the District has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the District has not met its burden to assess fees in excess of $25 per hour. This office encourages Ms. Rediker Roy and the District to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the District must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Rachel Rediker Roy