Robert Hohler v. Sharon, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20251092)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 24, 2025 SPR25/1092 Dr. Joel Jocelyn Assistant Superintendent Sharon Public Schools 75 Mountain Street Sharon, MA 02067 Dear Dr. Jocelyn: On April 22, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Sharon Public Schools (School/District) seeking permission to waive statutory limits to fees and 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, Robert Hohler, of the Boston Globe. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 14, 2025, Mr. Hohler requested: [1] [A]ny contracts the Sharon school district has with any outside law firm, business, or other entity related to reviewing any issue with the high school football program since Nov. 28, 2024[;] [2] [I]nvoices and payments related to internal or external reviews of any issue related to the football program during the same period[;] [3] [A] report based on a review of the football program[;] [4] [A] copy of the district’s written medical emergency response plan for the high school. 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). 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

Dr. Joel Jocelyn SPR25/1092 Page 2 April 24, 2025 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) 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).

Dr. Joel Jocelyn SPR25/1092 Page 3 April 24, 2025 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the School argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): The requested documents contain materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as follows: The requested documents include information regarding student access to special education services, which qualifies as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore must be redacted. See Champa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86, 97 (2015) The requested documents include significant amounts of medical information which qualifies as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore must be redacted. The requested documents include personnel information. Specifically, the report contains information that is useful in making employment decision and is therefore subject to redaction. Massachusetts courts have found that “core categories of personnel information that are ‘useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee’” may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). 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). Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the School requests to charge a fee of $75.00 per hour, and provides the following in support of its request: Accordingly, the District seeks to assess higher fees for time spent redacting records that fall within statutory exemptions beyond Exemption (a) of G.L. c. 4, §7(26) given the likelihood that the aforementioned categories of information need to be redacted. Specifically, the District seeks approval to charge an hourly rate of $75 per hour spent redacting, an amount typically approved by your office in response to fee petitions of this nature. Any time spent searching for and compiling documents would be charged at the rate of $25 an hour.

Dr. Joel Jocelyn SPR25/1092 Page 4 April 24, 2025 The redaction of the requested documents requires both knowledge in law and knowledge of the facts at issue. Accordingly, this redaction cannot be performed by a District employee; rather, it must be completed by legal counsel for the District. In particular, the records requested must be reviewed and redacted by an individual who is knowledgeable, well-versed and trained in case law responsive to Exemptions (a) and (c) and specifically, how the Supervisor of Public Records and courts have interpreted the type of information that may be redacted and applying those decisions to the requested record. The hourly rate associated with the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to perform this task is $250 per hour. The District estimates that because of the voluminous amount of information exempt under G.L. c. 4, §7(26) contained within the requested information, it will take an average of one minute to review and redact each page. This number is based on the need to carefully read each page, make the necessary determinations regarding whether the record contains exempt information, redact any confidential information contained in the records if found, and the possibility that other individuals may need to be consulted throughout this process. Based on the School’s petition, I find the School has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. However, I find the School has not met its burden to assess fees in excess of $25.00 per hour. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Hohler 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, §§ 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Robert Hohler