Marina Villeneuve v. Canton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20242963)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 6, 2024 SPR24/2963 Brian Lynch Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Records Access Officer Canton Public Schools 960 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Lynch: On October 31, 2024, this office received your petition on behalf of the Canton Public Schools (School/District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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, Marina Villeneuve. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 17, 2024, Ms. Villeneuve requested the following records: [1] Your district’s policies for the use of student surveillance technology: including collection and retention of student data, sharing with local law enforcement and parents and policies for responding to potentially inappropriate student conduct on school-issued devices[;] [2] Data tracking how often students have been investigated and/or received a behavior referral since Sept. 1, 2022 as a result of student activity monitoring tools[;] [3] Data tracking how often students have been disciplined since Sept. 1, 2022 as a result of student activity monitoring tools[;] [4] Data tracking the demographics of students who have been disciplined since Sept. 1, 2022 as a result of student activity monitoring tools. This should include, for example, the grade level, special education service, ELL status, economic disadvantage, gender and race of students who were suspended, expelled, charged 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

Brian Lynch SPR24/2963 Page 2 November 6, 2024 with crimes or otherwise disciplined due to their misuse of school issued devices[;] [5] Records of instances where student surveillance data was shared with law enforcement since Sept. 1, 2022[;] [6] Contracts with entities that have provided surveillance monitoring since Sept. 1, 2022[;] [7] All alerts (Including “flagged activity” and “smart alerts”) generated in response to student browsing through a surveillance company’s filters in September 2024[;] [8] Records, including summary reports, showing the number of instances of students flagged for LGBT and/or abortion keywords in 2024[;] [9] Data or records showing whether or how often your district has used surveillance software features to monitor or flag content or sites since Sept. 1 , 2022[;] [10] Records, including contracts and memoranda, listing the data points that a surveillance company can, and is collecting for your district. 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).

Brian Lynch SPR24/2963 Page 3 November 6, 2024 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). Current Petition In its petition, the School requests “an additional 30 business days to respond” and provides the following information in support of its request: [G]iven the number of requests 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. [A]dditionally, 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, segregate and examine the records, as well as 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. 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

Brian Lynch SPR24/2963 Page 4 November 6, 2024 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 understanding 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 School requests that it be permitted to charge $25 per hour “to segregate and redact potentially responsive records.” In support of its request, the School provides the following information: [T]he records sought in the request need to be reviewed and potentially redacted. In addition to charging a fee for redactions required by law, specifically federal and state laws that obligate the District to maintain the confidentiality of

Brian Lynch SPR24/2963 Page 5 November 6, 2024 personally-identifying student information, the District seeks the ability to charge for redactions under Exemption (c)... ... [G]iven that the requested records are for web searches conducted by students, including the students name, email, and search history, some of which may have resulted in discipline, the release of this information without redaction could constitute an invasion of personal privacy. The District therefore anticipates a need to redact personally identifying information from these records. 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 segregation or redaction. 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 As described above, I find that the School has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Accordingly, I find the School has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Villeneuve 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: Marina Villeneuve