Jaci Mason v. Marshfield, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20250707)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2025 SPR25/0707 Patrick Sullivan, Ed.D. Superintendent Marshfield Public Schools 76 South River Street Marshfield, MA 02050 Dear Superintendent Sullivan: On March 13, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of Marshfield Public Schools (School/MPSD) seeking an extension of time to produce records 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, Jaci Mason. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 28, 2025, Ms. Mason requested the following: 1. Any records related to lawsuits filed against or involving the Marshfield School District from 2022 through 2025[;] 2. A copy of [an identified individual]’s employment contract with the district, including any amendments or addendums. 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 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

Patrick Sullivan, Ed.D. SPR25/0707 Page 2 March 17, 2025 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 additional 30 business days to respond to this request.” In support of its request the School provides the following information: MPS[D] makes this request for additional time because the employee who will perform the search and recovery, review, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore, including public safety responsibilities. 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. 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).

Patrick Sullivan, Ed.D. SPR25/0707 Page 3 March 17, 2025 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). Current Petition In its petition, the School requests, “to charge $25 per hour to search, review, segregate and potentially redact records that are responsive to the Request.” In support of its petition, the School provides the following information in support of its petition: MPSD anticipates that the detailed descriptions of purchases within the responsive records contain information whose redaction or segregation is required by law, including student names protected by Exemption (a) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, attorney-client privileged information, information relating to the cybersecurity of MPSD protected by Exemption (n) of

Patrick Sullivan, Ed.D. SPR25/0707 Page 4 March 17, 2025 the Public Records Law, and others. MPSD also anticipates that the detailed descriptions of purchases within the responsive records contain information protected from disclosure by Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law, including employee medical and personnel information, as well as any personal information (i.e., personal cell phones numbers and email addresses). Each purchase description needs to be reviewed to determine whether there is any information that is exempt from disclosure contained within. 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, I find the School has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, this office encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Mason 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: Jaci Mason