Mary Delai v. Whittier Reg. Voc. Tech. School (SPR 20252774)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 25, 2025 SPR25/2774 Maureen Lynch Records Access Officer Whittier Regional Vocational Technical High School 115 Amesbury Line Road Haverhill, MA 01830 Dear Ms. Lynch, On September 22, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Whittier Regional Vocational Technical High School (School) 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, Mary DeLai. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 18, 2025, Ms. DeLai requested “…any and all correspondence related to the recently appointed Whittier Tech School Building Committee. This includes, but is not limited to: Emails, letters, text messages, memos, or other communications [b]etween members of the Whittier Tech School Committee, school officials, municipal officials (elected or appointed) from any of the eleven member communities, Northern Essex Community College, the Massachusetts School Building Authority, or staff [c]overing the period June 1, 2025 to present[.]” 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). 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

Maureen Lynch SPR25/2774 Page 2 September 25, 2025 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). Current Petition In its petition, the School requests permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (o) and (p) of the Public Records Law and provides the following in support of its request: Exemption (c) The requested documents contain materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an

Maureen Lynch SPR25/2774 Page 3 September 25, 2025 unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In particular, the records contain personal contact information for individuals involved in the requested communications. It is understood that personal phone numbers and email addresses may be withheld pursuant to Exemption (c). See SPR 13/077. Moreover, community members will occasionally share personal circumstances with Committee members and the Superintendent which may qualify as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Exemption (o); Exemption (p) The requested documents contain the home and/or personal email address and/or home telephone numbers of District employees. In light of the School’s petition, I find 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. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the School 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 School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Ms. DeLai 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: Mary DeLai