Alyson Cresciullo v. Millis, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20251803)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records June 30, 2025 SPR25/1803 Robert Mullaney Records Access Officer Millis Public Schools 245 Plain Street Millis, MA 02054 Dear Mr. Mullaney: On June 24, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Millis Public Schools (School/District) seeking 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, Alyson Cresciullo, of Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 9, 2025, Ms. Cresciullo requested the following: [C]opies of public records concerning school bus incidents in the Millis Middle- High School from January 12, 2023, to the present date (June 9, 2025) regarding my client . . . who was injured on Thursday January 12, 2023 at around 8:30 a.m. while as a student on the bus. Specifically, I am seeking: 1. Incident and accident reports involving school buses, including collisions, breakdowns, safety violations, or route deviations[;] 2. Records of injuries, medical treatment, or nurse/EMT reports arising from any bus-related incidents[;] 3. Photographs taken of any such incidents, vehicles, students, or injury sites[;] 4. Video footage, including bus surveillance camera footage, security camera footage, or footage taken by staff or third parties related to the incidents[;] 5. Internal communications, including emails, memos, and reports discussing these incidents, investigations, or disciplinary actions[;] 6. Meeting minutes or records where any of the above matters were discussed (e.g., school committee, safety committee, transportation meetings). 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

Robert Mullaney SPR25/1803 Page 2 June 30, 2025 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). 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).

Robert Mullaney SPR25/1803 Page 3 June 30, 2025 Current Petition In its petition, the School requests, “it be permitted to charge $25 per hour to search, review, segregate and potentially redact records that are responsive to the request.” In support of its petition, the School provides the following information: Additionally, the District anticipates that the records contain medical information of public school students exempt from disclosure as private medical information protected by Exemption (c) to the Public Records Law. Moreover, the records likely contain personal cell phone and/or email information of members of the public and employees, exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (c) and (o) to the Public Records Law. Due to the significant amount of exempt information within the records, the District conservatively estimates that it will take approximately 4.3 hours (i.e. 3 minutes per page) to review all 86 pages which may be responsive and segregate and potentially redact any information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Law. Each page needs to be reviewed to determine whether there is any information that is exempt from disclosure contained within. In light of the School’s petition, I find that 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). 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. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. Cresciullo 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: Alyson Cresciullo