Joshua Levin v. University of Massachusetts Boston (SPR 20251243)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 19, 2025 SPR25/1243 DeWayne Lehman Director of Communications University of Massachusetts – Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 Dear Mr. Lehman: I have received the petition of Joshua Levin, of The Mass Media, appealing the response of the University of Massachusetts, Boston (University) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 1, 2025, Mr. Levin requested “any emails, space reservation requests, budget documents and receipts relating to the ResilientMass Summit held Thursday, March 27, 2025 on the third floor of Campus Center.” Subsequently, Mr. Levin modified his request on May 5, 2025 and requested, “... any emails sent or received between Dec. 1, 2024 and April 1, 2025 containing any of the following [identified five terms and identified 16 individuals and] [a]ny individual affiliated with the source of the philanthropic funds you referred to in your previous response.” Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1060 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (April 17, 2025). In my April 17th determination, it was my understanding that the University was to provide a further response to Mr. Levin. The University provided responses on May 1, 2025 and May 5, 2025. Unsatisfied with the University’s responses, Mr. Levin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1243, was opened as a result. Subsequently, the University provided a fee estimate dated May 7, 2025, which Mr. Levin appealed as being unreasonable and untimely. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical 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

DeWayne Lehman SPR25/1243 Page 2 May 19, 2025 form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. University’s May 1st and May 5th responses In its May 1, 2025 response, the University stated, “[p]lease find attached the receipts for expenses related to the environmental summit. Note that all expenses related to the summit were philanthropically funded, not university funds.” In its May 5, 2025 response, the University produced the space reservation request and advised that it “... previously provided you with the final invoice. Note there are no budget documents that are responsive to your request.” The University further stated with regard to, “the request for ‘access to and a copy of any emails’ related to the event, in order for a search to be performed, please provide the following: Key words/terms to be searched for, date range the search should include, Individuals whose email boxes should be searched.” University’s May 7th fee estimate In its May 7, 2025 response, the University provided a fee estimate of $1,662.50 and stated as follows. A request to search 15 university email accounts for five (5) terms over a four (4) month period requires the assistance of university IT. Based on the expertise of university IT, the search would take eight (8) hours. Once the search is completed, all emails must be reviewed for any redactions pursuant to: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) under exemption (a), the Statutory Exemption. UMass Boston estimates approximately 100 emails per individual, totaling 1500 such records. At this time, we have compiled a good faith cost estimate in response to your request. Search: 8 hours at $25/hour = $ 100 (no charge for first 4 hours) Review/redactions: 62.5 hours at $25/hour = $1562.50 (estimate based off one

DeWayne Lehman SPR25/1243 Page 3 May 19, 2025 minute to review each email and 90 seconds for any redactions). Total: =$1662.50 Although the University has estimated that the process of searching, review and redacting the records will take 70.50 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the University requires this amount of time to produce responsive records. The University must provide further details regarding its fee estimate, including the tasks involved, and what each task entails. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Based upon the above, the University’s fee estimate lacks confirmation that the rate of $25 per hour is of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task(s). With regard to the issue Mr. Levin raised about the estimate not being timely, I find that Mr. Levin modified his request on May 5, 2025 and a fee estimate was provided two days later on May 7, 2025, thus the fee estimate is timely. I encourage Mr. Levin and the University to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Levin may wish to include applicable time periods or additional factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The University must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). For the reason discussed above, I find the University must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed is expressly provided for and consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Accordingly, the University is ordered to provide Mr. Levin 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. Mr. Levin may appeal the substantive nature of the University’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joshua Levin