Laura Gillis v. Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (SPR 20251959)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records July 11, 2025 SPR25/1959 Elizabeth M. McCoy Superintendent of Schools Dover-Sherborn Regional School District Superintendent’s Office 157 Farm Street Dover, MA 02030 Dear Superintendent McCoy: On July 8, 2025, this office received the petition of Abby Gould, Esq., of Stoneman, Chandler & Miller LLP, on behalf of the Dover-Sherborn Regional School District (District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to assess fees for time spent segregating and 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, Laura Gillis, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On June 26, 2025, Attorney Gillis requested: [1] A copy of the letter School Committee member [an identified individual] provided to parents claiming that 11 female students’ allegations of male students creating “explicit images of them using Al technology and were sharing them with lewd messages attached” as well as any and all follow-up communication(s) by the School Committee and/or Dover-Sherborn personnel to the parents on that same matter; [2] All communications, including emails and texts, to and from and regarding [a named individual] in the last twelve months on [the named individual’s] school committee email as well as any emails and texts on her personal cell phone and personal emails in connection with this matter that constitutes a public record; [3] Dover Sherborn communications, including emails and texts, to/from the Dover Police and/or Norfolk District Attorney’s Office regarding the female Students’ allegations; 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

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1959 Page 2 July 11, 2025 [4] Dover Sherborn records that were supplied to the Dover Police and/or Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office. 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 Responsive Records In its petition, the District requests an extension of 30 business days and provides the following information in support of its 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. The District estimates that completion of this request will take a total of over twenty-nine (29) hours to complete.

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1959 Page 3 July 11, 2025 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 $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my understanding that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1959 Page 4 July 11, 2025 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law pursuant to Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the District argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c): [T]he requestor seeks materials related to claims of misconduct and harassment by and to minor students, and information that is inherently private and intimate in nature, the disclosure of which could be harmful for the subjects and those persons implicated by the disclosure. In light of the District’s 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 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 District may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the District 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 described above, the District may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Also, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the District to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Attorney Gillis 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).

Elizabeth M. McCoy SPR25/1959 Page 5 July 11, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Laura Gillis, Esq. Abby Gould, Esq.