Monica Linden v. Franklin, Town of- Public Schools (SPR 20250239)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 28, 2025 SPR25/0239 Lucas Giguere Superintendent Franklin Public School District 355 East Central Street Franklin, MA 02038 Dear Superintendent Giguere: I have received the petition of Dr. Monica Linden appealing the response of the Franklin Public 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 January 2, 2025, Dr. Linden requested: … [S]pecific student diagnostic assessment data from the MAP assessment that is accessible through the school district’s contracted provider of interim diagnostic assessments. Please produce anonymized (no names or other Personally Identifiable Information), exported student data of individual students’ scaled scores in the content areas of Reading and Math for each interim assessment given in the most recent academic year that the MAP was given, together with their assigned school and assigned grade level. The District provided responses on January 16 and January 24, 2025. Unsatisfied with the responses, Dr. Linden petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/0239, was opened as a result. 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 (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, 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

Lucas Giguere SPR25/0239 Page 2 January 28, 2025 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 City’s January 16th and 24th Responses In its January 16, 2025 response, the District stated: … [I]t will take approximately twenty (20) minutes per report to fully search for, compile, review, segregate, redact, and reproduce each record. For the approximately over 6,000 pages the District has identified as potentially responsive to your request, it would take an estimated 8 hours to complete the District’s search for, compilation, review, segregation, redaction and reproduction of those records. Less the 2 free hours of time, this results in an initial fee of $150.00 (~6 hrs x $25/hr). The District further stated that the lowest paid employee with the skill necessary to respond to the request was compensated at a rate greater than $25.00 per hour, and that it anticipated redacting the responsive records pursuant to Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. In support of its proposed redactions under Exemption (a), the District cited M.G.L. c. 71, §§ 34D and 34E, 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. In its January 24, 2025 response, the District clarified its fee estimate as follows: After reviewing your request and verifying the files, this request requires the downloading and saving of 24 individual files that contain over 150 columns of data, in which over 140 columns must be removed. We recognize this is an electronic file, but attention and detail are paid to review all records, given the privacy and sensitivity of individualized student data. We want you to know that our intention is not to charge excessively in this process. As stated in the letter, if the actual time to complete the work is less than what was quoted, we will adjust accordingly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Although the District has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 8 hours of employee time, the District has not provided sufficient explanation of why 8 hours of employee time is necessary. The

Lucas Giguere SPR25/0239 Page 3 January 28, 2025 District must advise how many hours it requires to search and how many hours it requires to segregate and redact the records in order to comply with the records request. Further, based on the District’s response, it appears to be assessing a fee for redactions under Exemptions (a) and (c) of the Public Records Law. 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 Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. For the reasons discussed above, I find the District must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $150.00 assessed in its January 16th estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Dr. Linden 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 Dr. Linden 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. Dr. Linden 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: Dr. Monica Linden