Commonwealth Transparency v. Malden, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20242405)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 30, 2024 SPR24/2405 Janell Summers Records Access Officer Malden Public Schools 110 Pleasant Street Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Summers: On August 23, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Malden Public Schools (School/District) seeking an extension of time 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); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the School furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Open Commonwealth (“requestor”). G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On August 9, 2024 the requestor sought: [T]he author and all recipients (To:, Cc:, and/or Bcc:), date, and time all email sent by and/or received by any electronic mail account [two named individuals]. This request seeks all responsive records, with no limitation on date or time, and within the possession or under the control of the City of Malden. This requests specifically seeks, the To:, From:, Cc:, and Bcc: address fields, the Date and Time that the message was sent and/or received and whether or not there was an attachment. This request specifically EXCLUDES the body, the attachments, and the subject of the responsive documents. This requests specifically requests that the export be provided in ONLY .CSV or .XLSX form. 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; 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

Janell Summers SPR24/2405 Page 2 August 30, 2024 (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) must 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). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the School requests, “an extension of 30 business days…” In support of its request the School provides the following information: Given the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the District submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the District hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The District will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the School to produce the records without an extension, the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The School is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Janell Summers SPR24/2405 Page 3 August 30, 2024 Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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. 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 this request was not made for a commercial purpose. 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 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).

Janell Summers SPR24/2405 Page 4 August 30, 2024 Current Petition In its petition, the School requests, “to charge a fee of $25 per hour to produce and redact those records.” In support of its request, the School provides the following information concerning anticipated redactions: These documents require redactions of private personal email address information in accordance with the exemption set for at G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). . . . The responsive records may include private personal email address information which is not subject to disclosure pursuant to Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law . . . Additionally, the record may need to be redacted under Exemption (o), which applies to the home address, personal email address and home telephone number of an employee.... Records responsive to your request will thus need to be reviewed and redacted to the extent they contain private email addresses. As noted previously, the District will petition to charge a fee to redact under these exemptions. [emphasis in original] In light of the School’s petition, I find the School has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, 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 segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the School has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, the requestor 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(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Open Commonwealth