Andrea Roell v. Lexington, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20252890)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 16, 2025 SPR25/2890 Dr. Christine Lyons Records Access Officer Lexington Public Schools 146 Maple Street Lexington, MA 02420 Dear Dr. Lyons: I have received the petition of Andrea Roell appealing the response of the Lexington Public Schools (School) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). In two separate requests on August 29, 2025, Ms. Roell sought the following records: [1] [A]ny emails or texts sent to/from any combination of [three identified individuals and “[a]ny member of the School Committee”] between Aug 21-28, 2025. . . . Please also include any deleted or trashed emails. [2] [A]ll emails and text (school issued phones) sent between any combination of [five identified] people/teams between May 12-24. . . . There is likely a 32+page document attached. I do not need the attachment, but I do need the emails that went along with the document. . . . I also need any emails and texts during this time period that reference GoFundMe. The School responded on September 16, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Subsequently, in an email to the School on September 16, 2025, Ms. Roell narrowed the above two requests to “exclude automated notifications, listserv distributions, and duplicate records.” The School responded on September 30, 2025 and indicated, “the narrowed request does not reduce the scope of work required and therefore does not alter the good faith fee identified in [the School’s] . . . September 16, 2025 [fee estimate].” On October 1, 2025, Ms. Roell further modified her requests and stated, “[p]lease provide emails exchanged between [two identified individuals] and any member of the School Committee during the following date ranges: May 12–24, 2025 [and] August 21–28, 2025. . . . [This includes] deleted and trashed emails included as well as text messages from school issued 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

Dr. Christine Lyons SPR25/2890 Page 2 October 16, 2025 phones.” The School responded on October 1, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Ms. Roell petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2890, was opened as a result 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).

Dr. Christine Lyons SPR25/2890 Page 3 October 16, 2025 Current Appeal In her October 2, 2025 appeal petition, Ms. Roell states, “I have narrowed my search request significantly to ~ 2 weeks of emails between [two identified individuals] and the School Committee, related to school safety concerns. I requested elimination of duplicates, listservs, etc. They quoted $1230 for this narrow range.” The School’s October 1st Response In its October 1, 2025 response, the School indicated, “[i]n reviewing [the further narrowed request], the [School’s September 16, 2025 fee estimate] still stands” and provided a total fee estimate of $1230.00. As part of its fee estimate, the School identified 984 responsive records and indicated that it would require a total of 49.2 hours of work to produce the records. The School additionally noted that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks, and further provided the following information in support of its fee estimate: Potential Exemptions: . . . Information . . . which identifies or could be used to identify a particular student is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a), . . . with the relevant statutory authority being M.G.L. c.71, §§34D and 34E, as implemented through 603 CMR 23.07(4), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g. . . . [R]ecords must be reviewed to ascertain whether they contain such exempt information and, if so, those records must be withheld or redacted by law under Exemption (a). The email search results are also likely to include and/or constitute information about employees and/or personnel matters exempt from public disclosure under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c). . . . Any such records must be redacted prior to production and/or withheld in their entirety. In addition, the survey responses and email search results may also include additional private information exempt under the privacy exemption of M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c). . . . Further, personal email addresses and other contact information that may be contained in any potentially responsive records must be redacted as exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a). . . and M.G.L. c.66, §10B and M.G.L. c.150E, §5A(d). . . as well as pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c). . . . This personal contact information may also be exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(o) or (p), to the extent applicable. Finally, . . . [t]o the extent responsive records may include materials created by legal counsel and communicated to the District as its client or other information which is privileged as attorney-client communications and/or attorney work- product, such information would be protected from disclosure under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a). . . .

Dr. Christine Lyons SPR25/2890 Page 4 October 16, 2025 Given the nature of these records, we anticipate effectively all of the segregation and redaction process will be for information that is covered by Exemption (a) and is required by law; however, to the extent there are any segregation/redactions not required by law, the District will not charge for the related segregation/redaction time. Summary of Permissible Fees District employees have already spent several hours searching for and compiling records in response to these requests and providing you with this initial response as required by the Public Records Law. . . . The District has determined that it is unable to absorb any further expense of time and resources associated with your request without charging a fee. . . . In the most recent decennial U.S. Census, the Town of Lexington had a population of exceeding 20,000 and, as such, the District may charge a fee for all time involved in responding to your request after two hours. Please note that the District has already spent more than two (2) hours searching for and compiling records and providing you with this initial response as required by law. . . . . . . [W]e estimate that it will take at least three (3) . . . minutes per record to fully search for, compile, review, segregate, redact, and reproduce each record in accordance with applicable law. This has and/or will involve, without limitation saving the records already located to a single file, manually reviewing each record to determine whether it is, in fact, responsive, redacting any exempt information with the labeling and explanation required by law, and then saving this document to another file for production to you. . . . Although the School has estimated that the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing the responsive records requires 49.2 hours, it is unclear from the School’s estimate how much time is allocated to search, and how much time is allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. The School has also estimated that it requires “at least three (3) . . . minutes per record to fully search for, compile, review, segregate, redact, and reproduce each record in accordance with applicable law.” However, it is unclear the number of pages there are for each responsive record. Accordingly, the School must provide further details regarding the tasks involved and what each task entails, including the time it is allocating to searching for, segregating, and redacting the requested records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). Further, based on the School’s response, it appears it is assessing a fee only for segregation and redaction, “that is covered by Exemption (a) and is required by law.” Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Consequently, the School must confirm that it is only charging for segregation and/or redactions under Exemption (a) and the attorney-client privilege.

Dr. Christine Lyons SPR25/2890 Page 5 October 16, 2025 Additionally, the School must clarify if the 49.2 hours cited in its fee estimate includes the first free 2 hours to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce records. Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first (two) 2 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). For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed in its October 1, 2025 estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). I encourage Ms. Roell and the School to continue to communicate in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Ms. Roell may wish to further narrow the parameters to enable the search to be processed. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(vii) (an agency or 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 agency or municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Ms. Roell with a response to her modified October 1, 2025 request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrea Roell