Rachel and William Motley v. Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (SPR 20251472)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 30, 2025 SPR25/1472 Justin R. Gomes, Esq. Stoneman, Chandler & Miller, LLP. 99 High Street, 13th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Dear Attorney Gomes: On May 23, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting 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 District furnished a copy of the petition to the requestors, Rachel and William Motley. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On May 12, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Motley requested: [a]ll written correspondence (including emails, letters, and digital messages) received by the Superintendent and/or Assistant Superintendent of Dover- Sherborn Public Schools from parents or legal guardians of students, from September 1, 2022 to the present (inclusive), that relate to: Grievances or complaints, Concerns regarding school safety, student conduct, discipline, or administrative responses, Any formal or informal feedback related to incidents involving student behavior, bullying, harassment, or school response protocols. 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 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

Justin R. Gomes, Esq. SPR25/1472 Page 2 May 30, 2025 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). Current Petition In its petition, the District requests “[a]t least thirty (30) business days to respond to the request upon received payment” and provides the following information in support of its request: [B]ecause of the magnitude and difficulty of the request, the District is petitioning the supervisory of records for additional time to respond to this request. This request requires a thorough search, segregation and examination of records. The materials being reviewed will likely include information prohibited from disclosure. There are limited staff with the expertise and availability to interpret documents in light of this request. These staff have duties critical for the operations of the school district. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the District to produce the records without an extension, the District has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The District 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

Justin R. Gomes, Esq. SPR25/1472 Page 3 May 30, 2025 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).

Justin R. Gomes, Esq. SPR25/1472 Page 4 May 30, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, the District requests “[t]o assess a fee to segregate and redact the requested information,” and provides the following information: [T]he attached record request is broad in scope and relates to correspondence by District employees who often correspond regarding information that is exempt from disclosure under public records law and even prohibited from disclosure by statute. For example, student records are prohibited and exempt from disclosure under state and federal law. Also, the District expects that much of the correspondence would relate to personnel information that is exempt from public records law. See Student Records Law MGL Ch. 71 § 34D, 34E; FERPA 20 USC §1232G; and Right to Privacy MGL Ch. 214 §1B; See also MGL Ch. 4, §7(26)(a-c). Subsequently in an email to this Division on May 30, 2025, the Division adds “[t]he personnel exemption was listed because correspondence could relate to ‘grievances or complaints’ about employees. Such materials could lead to disclosures by witnesses, or employees themselves that is commonly regarded as intimate, private, and potentially embarrassing if made public. As a public school is tasked with serving children, the district is mindful of the heightened expectation of privacy in documents related to them and those that serve them.” In an email to this Division on May 27, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Motley object to the District’s petition to assess fees, arguing “[we] are in receipt of the petition and the frankly outrageous fee schedule that has been provided in response to our FOIA request. Given that Dover-Sherborn is one of the wealthiest school districts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we are deeply disappointed that the District is now showing a greater willingness to comply with a straightforward and lawful public records request, especially one so clearly aligned with the public interest.” Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the District 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 As described above, I find that the District has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days. Additionally, I find the District has met its burden to explain how the response could not be prudently completed without redaction or segregation. To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the District may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the District to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner.

Justin R. Gomes, Esq. SPR25/1472 Page 5 May 30, 2025 Please note, Mr. and Mrs. Motley 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: Rachel and William Motley