Kevin Reddington v. Canton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20250858)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 31, 2025 SPR25/0858 Brian Lynch Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Canton Public Schools 960 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Lynch: On March 28, 2025, 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, Kevin Reddington. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 14, 2025, Mr. Reddington requested: [1] CHS & Hansen School medication error reports from 09/01/2023 to 02/27/2025[;] [2] CHS & Hansen School controlled substance discrepancy logs or reports from 09/01/2023 to 02/27/2025. As well a report from your SNAP program for the same time period that includes a history of controlled substance accounting logs for the same time period[;] [3] CHS & Hansen School list of any school nurses to include substitute nurses/ district/agency & float nurses that worked between 09/01/2023 & 02/27/2025[;] [4] CHS & Hansen School incident reports involving school nursing misconduct with corresponding incident reports from 09/01/23 to 02/27/25[;] [5] CHS & Hansen School any parent notifications of medication discrepancies from 09/01/23 to 02/27/25[;] 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 SPR25/0858 Page 2 March 31, 2025 [6] CHS & Hansen School history of parental drop-off logs regarding controlled substance handling between a parent & the school nurse from 09/01 /23 to 02/27/25[;] [7] CHS & Hansen School emails/communications/statements/letters/internal incident reports for any parental complaints regarding a school nurse at these schools from 09/01/23 to 02/27/25[;] [8] Provide the most up to date copy of CPS’s policy regarding medication losses, discrepancies & medication errors[;] [9] CHS & Hansen school policies for securing their locked medication cabinets within the school health offices. If not a school specific policy, please provide the district policy[;] [10] Provide who had access to the keys used to secure the locked medication cabinet within the school health offices at CHS & Hansen Schools between 03/08/24 to 03/20/24 & 04/06/24 to 04/12/24[.] It is my understanding that the School’s petition concerns Items one through seven of the request. 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). 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

Brian Lynch SPR25/0858 Page 3 March 31, 2025 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 beyond the time specified under the statute” and provides the following information in support of its request: Given the number of requests, the broad and non-specific nature of the 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. Additionally, the District notes that the employee available to assist in this response has additional responsibilities that they must complete in order to ensure the operation of school business. 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 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)

Brian Lynch SPR25/0858 Page 4 March 31, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the School argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law: [T]he requested records may include information regarding personnel information, including potential accusations or findings of misconduct, some of which may have resulted in discipline, the release of this information without redaction could constitute an invasion of personal privacy. See Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000) (“employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion or termination information” may be withheld under Exemption (c). The District therefore anticipates a need to redact personally identifying information from these records.

Brian Lynch SPR25/0858 Page 5 March 31, 2025 Based on the information provided in its fee 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). 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 described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Please note, Mr. Reddington 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: Kevin Reddington