Sherri Barron v. Freetown-Lakeville Regional School District (SPR 20243108)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 27, 2024 SPR24/3108 Alan Strauss Superintendent Freetown-Lakeville Regional School District 98 Howland Road Lakeville, MA 02347 Dear Superintendent Strauss: I have received the petition of Sherri Barron appealing the response of the Freetown- Lakeville Regional School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On August 20, 2024, Ms. Barron requested: Documentation of participation in the Superintendent Induction Program for [1] Year 2022-2023 including dates of attendance and PDPs earned[;] [2] Year 2023-2024 including dates of attendance and PDPs earned[;] [3] Year 2024-2025 any dates that are scheduled. The District provided a response on September 4, 2024. Unsatisfied with the response, Ms. Barron petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR24/3108, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor; Reason for the Request Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Ms. Barron’s purpose in making the request has no bearing on the public status of any existing responsive records. 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 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

Alan Strauss SPR24/3108 Page 2 November 27, 2024 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 District’s September 4th Response In its September 4, 2024 response, the District provided Ms. Barron with 53 pages of records responsive to her request, redacted pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (n) of the Public Records Law. The District further informed Ms. Barron that it possessed at least 802 pages of additional responsive records. The District estimated the cost of providing those records to be $325.00, and stated: The District very conservatively estimates that, on average, one (1) minute each per these eight hundred and two (802) pages of additional records will be required for the District to review and redact those records in accordance with applicable law, resulting in a calculation of 802 minutes divided by sixty (60) minutes per hour, requiring over thirteen (13) hours of staff time. The lowest paid person capable of performing this task earns greater than $25.00 per hour. Therefore, a total of over thirteen (13) hours of review/redaction time, (required by applicable law as detailed herein), not counting the well over two (2) hours already expended by District information technology staff to search for and segregate these additional likely responsive records – described above, multiplied by the maximum hourly rate of $25.00 per hour, results in a total good faith fee estimate of three-hundred and twenty-five dollars ($325.00) for the District’s production of additional responsive records. In support of its claim that it was obligated by law to perform this segregation and redaction, the District cited Exemptions (a), (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law, as well as the attorney-client privilege. To justify its proposed redaction under Exemption (a), the

Alan Strauss SPR24/3108 Page 3 November 27, 2024 District cited “… 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 99, the Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and related regulations, and … 603 CMR 23.00.” In an email communication to this office on November 19, 2024, the District reiterated the positions set forth in its September 4th response, and invited Ms. Barron to “… more narrowly tailor or otherwise modify the scope of the request if desired, upon which modification, if any, the District would be happy to calculate a revised good faith fee estimate.” Based on the District’s response, it appears to be assessing a fee for redactions under Exemptions (a), (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law and the attorney-client privilege. Under 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 pursuant to 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). Consequently, the District must clarify if the fee assessed includes time necessary to redact records under Exemptions (c), (f), and (n) of the Public Records Law. For the reason discussed above, I find the District must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $325.00 assessed in its September 4th estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Ms. Barron and the District to communicate further 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 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Barron with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law, and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Ms. Barron may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sherri Barron