Christopher O. Cornett v. Malden, City of (SPR 20253138)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 30, 2025 SPR25/3138 Joanne Perperian Public Records Access Officer City of Malden Office of the City Solicitor 215 Pleasant Street, Suite 420 Malden, MA 02148 Dear Ms. Perperian: On October 27, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the City of Malden, (City) 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 City furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Christopher Cornett. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 14, 2025, Mr. Cornett requested the following: . . . [A]ccess to or copies of Professional Learning Community (PLC) meeting materials from the high school level, specifically those involving English Learner (EL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) educators and instructional teams. Please include any of the following types of records, if available: . . . PLC agendas, minutes, or team notes from meetings where ESL/EL instruction, curriculum, assessment, or student support were discussed[;] . . . Team collaboration notes, department summaries, or leadership meeting records that document how ESL/EL teachers or staff coordinated instruction[;] . . . One representative document per month the school was in session, covering the period from . . . September 2019 through June 2025. . . . . . . [R]elevant key terms may include: “ESL,” “EL,” “English Learner,” “WIDA,” “ACCESS,” “language development,” “PLC,” “team meeting,” “collaboration,” “department notes,” or “instructional planning.” 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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3138 Page 2 October 30, 2025 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 City “requests an additional 30 business days . . . to respond to the request” and provides the following information: Given the broad scope of the request and the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the City submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the City hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to the request, given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. Additionally, the employee who will perform the search and recovery, segregation and redaction process have many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The City will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension.

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3138 Page 3 October 30, 2025 In light of the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records, the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, and the capacity of the City to produce the request without the extension, the City has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The City 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 $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Petitions seeking a waiver of statutory limits to fees assessed to segregate and/or redact public records must be made within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3138 Page 4 October 30, 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, the City indicates that it seeks permission to assess fees for segregation and redaction “at a rate of $25 per hour” and provides the following in support of its request: The City requests that the Supervisor authorize it to charge a fee to produce the records sought, as set forth below, because the responsive records contain documents that would qualify under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law and will require detailed review and redaction prior to production. . . . The records sought in the request need to be reviewed, and potentially redacted. The City seeks the ability to charge for redactions under Exemption (c). These documents contain personal identifiable information (including, but not limited to student names, date of birth, state ID, email addresses, home addresses, and phone numbers) appear in these records and will require redactions in accordance with the exemption set forth at G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Based on the information provided in its fee petition, I find the City 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). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the City has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the City may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Please note, Mr. Cornett 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).

Joanne Perperian SPR25/3138 Page 5 October 30, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Christopher Cornett