Andrew Garcia v. Arlington, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252775)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 26, 2025 SPR25/2775 Robert M. Spiegel Human Resources Director/Records Access Officer Arlington Public Schools 14 Mill Brook Drive Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Mr. Spiegel: On September 22, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Arlington Public Schools (School/District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and requesting permission to charge 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, Andrew Garcia. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). Between September 8, 2025 and September 11, 2025, Mr. Garcia submitted 329 public records requests. 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. 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 M. Spiegel SPR25/2775 Page 2 September 26, 2025 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). Current Petition In its petition, the School requests “additional time to respond to the request.” In an email to this Division on September 23, 2025, the School states “[we] do need an extension of time of 15 business days” and provides the following information in support of its request: [D]uring that time period between September 8, 2025 and September 11, 2025, the District received over 300 separate records requests from the [an identified email address]. [T]he District represents that it is more than willing, consistent with its obligation under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii), to communicate with the requestor to suggest reasonable modifications of the scope of the request that would enable more efficient and affordable record access. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, efforts undertaken by the School in fulfilling the current request, as well as the capacity of the School to produce the records without an extension, the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The School is granted an extension of 15 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).

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/2775 Page 3 September 26, 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). Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the School requests “to charge for time spent responding to public records requests received between September 8, 2025 and September 11, 2025” and provides the following in support of its request: [T[he redaction of the requested documents requires both knowledge in law and

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/2775 Page 4 September 26, 2025 knowledge of the facts at issue. Accordingly, the records requested must be reviewed and redacted by an individual who is knowledgeable, well-versed and trained in case law responsive to Exemptions (a), (c) and (d) and specifically, how the Supervisor of Public Records and courts have interpreted the type of information that may be redacted and applying those decisions of the requested record. [E]xemption (a): The requested documents may contain information on students and their participation in District programs and access to special education services, which is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute in that the documents implicate student record/education record information under 603 CMR 23.00 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). This information will need to be redacted from the responsive documents. [E]xemption (c): The requested documents may contain materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as follows: The requested documents may include information regarding student access to special education services and their need 'to access certain spaces, which qualifies as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore must be redacted. See Champa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86, 97 (2015). The requested documents may include medical information and room accommodations to individuals with disabilities, which qualifies as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore must be redacted. The requested documents may include personnel information. Specifically, the report contains information that is useful in making employment decisions and is therefore subject to redaction. Massachusetts courts have found that "core categories of personnel information that are 'useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee"' may be withheld from disclosure. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2003). [E]xemption (d): The requested documents likely contain inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters relating to policy positions being developed. In an email to this Division on September 24, 2025, Mr. Garcia objects to the School’s petition to assess fees, arguing “[APS] has consolidated multiple, separately submitted requests into a single “lumped” response. Each request was submitted on a different date and assigned its own unique identifier and catalog number. Our requests do not require the creation of new records, legal research, or extensive review. Production specifications were made clear in advance: rolling release by email, delivery in PDF with CSV index, segregable portions released if exemptions are claimed, and good-faith estimates only if fees exceeded $10. [We] offered a cooperative solution: rolling production. Internal staff email communications, which are urgent, easily retrievable, and minimally redaction-prone, were prioritized for immediate release. More sensitive categories, such as student-specific or personnel records, could follow later with additional review. APS has disregarded this compromise, choosing instead to delay all production by conflating requests with raising costs.”

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/2775 Page 5 September 26, 2025 Based on the information provided in its fee 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 segregation or redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion As described above, I find that the School has established good cause for a time extension of 15 business days. 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. Further, I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. When preparing a fee estimate for the provision of the requested records, the School is advised to provide a detailed explanation to the requestor indicating why the estimated amount of time is necessary. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee must be reasonable). The School must provide a response to Mr. Garcia within five business days of receipt of this determination. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(h)(4). Please note, Mr. Garcia 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: Andrew Garcia