Katherine Carlson v. Masconomet Regional School District (SPR 20251739)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 1, 2025 SPR25/1739 Jacqueline Bolduc Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Masconomet Regional School District 20 Endicott Road Boxford, MA 01921 Dear Ms. Bolduc: I have received the petition of Katherine Carlson appealing the response of the Masconomet Regional School District (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On June 5, 2025, Ms. Carlson requested: [1] [A] copy of the latest audit report, in its finalized or draft form, including the management letter, financial statements, and any other content included with the audit[;] [2] [C]opy of any past (for fy 24 and 25) or pending bills for the firm that has prepared the audit both for fy24 and fy23, along with any record showing the date of the warrant in which the payment was approved by the school committee[;] [3] [A]ny document that shows current balances (as of 6-1-25) or latest date prior to 6-1-25) for the Turf Field Project account (fund 331)[,] the excess and deficiency fund[,] the restricted capital projects fund[,] and the current unassigned balance. The School responded on June 16, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Ms. Carlson petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/1739, was opened as a result. 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 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). 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

Jacqueline Bolduc SPR25/1739 Page 2 July 1, 2025 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. Fees - Municipalities 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. 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 (two) 2 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 how 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). The School’s June 16th response Item 1 In its June 16, 2025 response, the School states that it does not possess responsive records to Ms. Carlson’s first request. In her appeal petition, Ms. Carlson states, “I received the audit letter from the Asst Superintendent today (after my phone call with your offices this morning.)”

Jacqueline Bolduc SPR25/1739 Page 3 July 1, 2025 Items 2 and 3 In its June 16, 2025 response, the School provides a fee estimate of $50.00 for 4 hours of work at $25.00 an hour to identify, compile and export responsive records for Items 2 and 3. The School states the following: Based on the nature and scope of this request qualified employees must perform the following work in order to respond to this request: Identify, compile and export the requested information and convert the responsive information into an electronically-readable format. The lowest paid employees capable of performing these tasks all earn greater than $25.00 per hour. Given these circumstances, the District’s good faith fee estimate is calculated by: four (4) hours of Central Office Business Staff to identify, review, compile and export all of the requested documentation. Because the District serves a population of over 20,000 residents, the first 2 hours of time are deducted, leaving two (2) hours of staff time, multiplied by the maximum allowed hourly pay rate of $25.00 per hour (as stated, less than the hourly rate of pay of the lowest paid employee qualified to perform this work), resulting in a good faith fee estimate of $50 (2 hours at $25.00 per hour). See M.G.L. c. 66, Section 10(d)(iii). The District does not anticipate any additional printing or copying fees associated with this request. Should you wish to narrow or revise the scope of this request, the District would be happy to recalculate a good faith fee estimate accordingly. Current Appeal In her appeal petition for Items 2 and 3, Ms. Carlson states: The RAO states that it will take 4 hours to (pull up some bills and some numbers reflecting financial data held by the school district.) The turf fund is identified by number, the excess and deficiency fund is mandated by state law, both the restricted capital projects fund and the current unassigned balance are mentioned in prior audits… Many of these numbers have been discussed in public meetings, although, with a lack of machine readable minutes, it is difficult to determine when and what the discussion was with precision. With numbers that totaled in excess of 5 million dollars in fy23 (see 6-5 email), I am surprised that the central office does not track these numbers closely, and that it would take a half a day to find them. The lack of specificity as to the quantity and type of documents to be provided indicate that this is not particularly a good faith estimate…. Although the School indicates in its fee estimate that it will take 4 hours “to identify, review, compile and export all of the requested documentation,” it is not clear from the School’s

Jacqueline Bolduc SPR25/1739 Page 4 July 1, 2025 estimate how many records there are and how many hours have been allocated to identify, review, compile and export all of the requested documentation. The School must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in producing these records. Accordingly, the School must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). In its fee estimate, the School states it will need to “convert the responsive information into an electronically-readable format.” Based on the School’s response, it is uncertain how it can assess a fee for time to convert the records under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). The School must clarify how this task constitutes time to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce records. I encourage Ms. Carlson and the School to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. Carlson may wish to narrow the parameters or include applicable factors to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The School 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). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Carlson with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) 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. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Katherine Carlson