Kristen Fellini v. Canton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20251285)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 12, 2025 SPR25/1285 Brian Lynch Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Canton Public Schools 960 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Lynch: On May 7, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Canton Public Schools (School) 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, Kristen Fellini. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On April 23, 2025, Ms. Fellini requested: [1] Any communication between a Town of Canton Employee with any Licensure Boards to include but not limited to the Massachusetts Board of Nursing between 05/14/2024 to the present in regard to the investigation into an alleged loss of a students prescribed medication at the Canton High School (CHS) on 3/20/2024 and the Hansen Elementary School on 4/12/2024[;] [2] Any communications between a Town of Canton Employee with [identified individual] starting from 04/21/2024 to the present in regards to the investigation into an alleged loss of a students prescribed medication at the Canton High School (CHS) on 3/20/2024 and the Hansen Elementary School on 4/12/2024[;] [3] Any communications between a Town of Canton Employee with [identified individual] starting from 03/08/2024 to the present in regards to the investigation into an alleged loss of a students prescribed medication at the Canton High School (CHS) on 3/20/2024 and the Hansen Elementary School on 4/12/2024[;] [4] Communication log including but not limited to via email, fax, verbal, text message, direct message, notes taken during the communication, etc. of [identified individual] communication with [identified individual on 04/22/2024[;] 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 SPR25/1285 Page 2 May 12, 2025 [5] All communication logs between [identified individual] with any person starting from 3/20/2024 to the present in regards to the investigation into an alleged loss of a students prescribed medication at the Canton High School (CHS) on 3/08/2024 and the Hansen Elementary School on 4/12/2024. 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 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…” In support of its request the School provides the following information: Given 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. Therefore, the District hereby

Brian Lynch SPR25/1285 Page 3 May 12, 2025 petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The District will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. 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). 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).

Brian Lynch SPR25/1285 Page 4 May 12, 2025 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 that it be allowed “to charge a fee of $25 per hour to segregate and redact potentially responsive records…” In support of its petition, the School provides the following information: In addition to charging a fee for redactions required by law, specifically federal and state laws that obligate the District to maintain the confidentiality of medical information and personally-identifying student information, the District seeks the ability to charge for redactions under Exemption (c), which requires withholding or redacting records which contain “personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Given the nature of the requests, which include requests for communications regarding an investigation into a school nurse, the responsive records likely contain personnel or medical information, or information the release of which could constitute an invasion of personal privacy for this employee or the students that she cared for. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 208, 292 (2017) (weighing privacy interests versus public interest by assessing “(1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources). The District therefore anticipates a need to redact exempt personnel and private information from these records, along with exemptions pursuant to state and federal law. 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).

Brian Lynch SPR25/1285 Page 5 May 12, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I find that 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. Please be advised, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Fellini 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: Kristen Fellini