Brittany Dudley Cesan v. Southwick-Tolland Regional School District (SPR 20252338)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records August 22, 2025 SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Betsy Tetreault Human Resource Specialist Southwick-Tolland-Granville Regional School District 86 Powder Mill Road Southwick, MA 01077 Dear Ms. Tetreault: I have received the petition of Brittany Dudley Cesan appealing the responses of the Southwick-Tolland-Granville Regional School District (School/District) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). SPR25/2336 On July 9, 2025, Ms. Cesan requested the following: All written and electronic communications (including emails, internal memos, letters, meeting notes, and any digital messages) that reference or relate to me in connection with: - My candidacy and interview process for the High School Guidance Counselor position at Southwick Regional School - The search committee’s communications and deliberations regarding that role - The offer of employment extended to me for that position - Any discussions or decisions to modify or change my role before my official start date - The reassignment of my position to 7th and 8th Grade Adjustment Counselor - Any internal discussion or documentation related to the decision to terminate or release me from employment - My expressed concerns regarding treatment by Ms. Shorter - Communications from or to Human Resources related to me, my role, employment status, concerns raised, or job title 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

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Page 2 August 22, 2025 - Any written summaries, reports, or meeting notes that mention me or my employment The School responded on July 9, 2025 and July 11, 2025 providing numerous responsive records. On July 14, 2025, Ms. Cesan modified her request, as follows: [A]ll documents, emails, text messages, internal communications, memos, meeting notes, and any other written or digital records that reference me, my name, my position, or pertain to the circumstances surrounding my employment or termination/layoff. This includes, but is not limited to correspondence: - Between other parties (not just those involving me directly) that discuss me, my job performance, or my position - Related to the decision-making process behind my layoff - Referencing my name, my role, or any job-related discussions - On any platform or device, including personal devices if used for public business Additionally, she requested “all text messages sent or received on [a specified individual’s cellular] device that mention me, my role, or anything related to my employment or dismissal.” The School responded on July 21, 2025, providing additional responsive records. SPR25/2338 On July 22, 2025, Ms. Cesan requested the following: [A]ll text messages and other electronic communications sent or received by [a second specified individual] concerning any matter related to the Southwick- Tolland Regional School District from August 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. This request includes but is not limited to both district-issued and personal devices or accounts paid for by and used for school-related business. The School responded on July 28, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, and objecting to the fees, Ms. Cesan petitioned this office, and these appeals, SPR25/2336 and SR25/2338, were opened as a result. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, the School provided a further response to Ms. Cesan and this office on August 20, 2025.

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Page 3 August 22, 2025 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). 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. 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). Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Cesan contends that “this fee is excessive, unreasonable, and clearly designed to deter or prevent access to records to which I am lawfully entitled. . . . I

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Page 4 August 22, 2025 initially asked for what I wanted and only expanded my request due to a lack of disclosure and cooperation.” She further argues the following: I received fewer than ten emails, most of which were between myself and Human Resources, and nothing regarding my hire, reassignment, or termination. The HR Director informed me that there were no other emails with my name in it whatsoever, and “no reason to believe” that Principal Shorter had ever sent text messages about me, and therefore, no attempt was made to search her device. This is demonstrably false, as I am personally in possession of at least two such text messages and a few emails myself. The School’s Responses In its July 9, July 11, and July 21, 2025 responses, the School provides numerous responsive records. In its July 28, 2025 response, the School provides a fee estimate for the July 22nd request, totaling $224,146. In its August 20, 2025 letter to this office and Ms. Cesan, the School further elaborates on its fee estimate. The School provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: We will assess a fee for staff time associated with locating, reviewing, and redacting responsive records. In accordance with 950 CMR 32.07, the hourly rate charged will not exceed $25.00 per hour and will be based on the lowest-paid employee capable of performing the task. Prepayment is required before we proceed. A detailed cost estimate is attached. A request has been made to District employees who may have any text messages relevant to your request. The School provides the following chart summarizing its fee estimate: Request Records Time Employee Estimated Available Title Cost Copies of all text messages and other electronic communications 132,588 132,588 X 4 $25.00 per hour $220,980 sent or received concerning [a emails minutes per by the Human named individual] held by the email Resources Southwick-Tolland Regional Specialist School District from August 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. This request includes but is not limited 1,900 text 1,900 X 4 $25.00 per hour to both district-issued and messages minutes per by the Human $3,166 personal devices or accounts by text Resources the Human minutes Resources Specialist paid for by and used for school- related business.

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Page 5 August 22, 2025 Total $224,146 In its August 20th response, the School provides the following additional information in support of its fee estimate: As noted in the original response, the District’s estimate is calculated using a reasonable standard of four (4) minutes of staff time to review each individual email or text message. This calculation is not arbitrary but reflects the time necessary to carefully examine each record, determine whether it contains exempt or non-public information, and, if so, apply appropriate redactions before disclosure. It is also important to recognize that many of the responsive emails and text message threads will consist of multiple pages of communications rather than a single, brief entry. Accordingly, the review of each “record” will often involve the examination of several pages of dialogue, significantly increasing the complexity of the review. The individual whose communications are implicated served as a school counselor. Consequently, the content of these records is likely to include information that is subject to protection under multiple confidentiality statutes and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, personally identifiable student information protected under the Massachusetts Student Records Law (M.G.L. c. 71, § 34D; 603 CMR 23.00), as well as references to medical exemptions, counseling notes, or other sensitive student or family information that may fall under federal or state privacy protections. In addition, electronic messages referencing or involving the Principal are also likely to include other categories of information subject to exemption under the Public Records Law, such as personnel-related material and student records information that is legally protected from disclosure. In its August 20th response, the School also states the following: Finally, and importantly, in an effort to assist and reduce the financial burden on the requestor, the District has suggested that the scope of the request could be narrowed to focus more specifically on the materials of greatest interest. A narrower request would likely result in a significantly reduced volume of records to be reviewed, thereby lowering the overall estimate and expediting the production of records. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated:

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Page 6 August 22, 2025 [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office encourages Ms. Cesan and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Cesan may consider narrowing the scope of her request to enable the School to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The School must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any potential reasonable modifications to the request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Cesan and the School communicate further as described above, Ms. Cesan may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Page 7 August 22, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brittany Dudley Cesan