Gideon Epstein v. Andover, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253337)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 18, 2025 SPR25/3337 Nicole L. Kieser Records Access Officer Director of Communications Andover Public Schools 30 Whittier Court Andover, MA 01810 Dear Ms. Kieser: On November 12, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Andover Public Schools (School/District) 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, Gideon Epstein, of the ACLU of Massachusetts. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On October 31, 2025, Mr. Epstein requested “the following records created on or after January 1, 2023, unless another time period is otherwise specified:” [D]ocuments pertaining to APS’s acquisition, possession, and use of facial recognition technology in schools, administrative buildings, and other APS properties across the Town of Andover. . . . [1] Documents relating to APS’s purchase, trial, testing, piloting or use of facial recognition technology, including but not limited to purchase orders, RFPs, licensing agreements, invoices, and contracts; [2] All communications referencing facial recognition, including but not limited to those involving representatives of any private vendor or company offering or soliciting any facial-recognition product or service; [3] Materials relating to how any facial-recognition product or service functions (or functions improperly), including e-mails, handouts, PowerPoint presentations, advertisements, or specification documents; [4] Manuals, policies, procedures, and practices governing the use or monitoring of a facial recognition product or service or related information or databases. This request includes, but is not limited to: [a] Procedures for using, deleting, or retaining photos of subjects to be identified; 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

Nicole L. Kieser SPR25/3337 Page 2 November 18, 2025 [b] Materials identifying any sources of such photos, such as mobile devices, body cameras, surveillance videos, or identification photos; [5] Training materials related to any facial-recognition product or service; [6] Records relating to any public process or debate about any facial-recognition product or service, including meeting agendas or minutes, public notices, analyses, or communications between the APS and elected leaders or local or state officials . . .; [7] All contracts or MOUs with local, state, and/or federal agencies referencing or pertaining to facial recognition technology; [8] All audits, annual reports, and other administrative reports referencing facial recognition technology. This request includes but is not limited to all records containing or pertaining to: [a] Statistics and other reports that reflect how facial recognition performed; [b] Statistics and other reports that reflect how frequently facial recognition is used; [c] Statistics and other reports that show the evolution of facial recognition use over time; [d] Statistics and other reports that show the number of times facial recognition technology misidentified an individual using facial recognition; [9] Any document containing any APS legal analysis or justification for any use of face recognition technology. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (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 or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable;

Nicole L. Kieser SPR25/3337 Page 3 November 18, 2025 and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. 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 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 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, in addition to segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, the School provides the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c), (n), and (o): Exemption (c)[:] The documents contain information and other materials/data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. In particular, there is a significant amount of personal email addresses and cellphone numbers for private citizens. Exemption (n)[:] The requested documents contain records . . . the disclosure of which, in the District’s reasonable judgment, are likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. Exemption (o)[:] The requested documents contain home addresses, personal email addresses and home telephone numbers of public employees. In a subsequent email to Mr. Epstein and this office on November 17, 2025, the School provided additional information regarding its claims for segregation and redaction under Exemption (n). The School advised, “[t]he records include specific procedures for managing

Nicole L. Kieser SPR25/3337 Page 4 November 18, 2025 school building threat. If these procedures were disclosed, it would jeopardize public safety in essentially providing information to individuals on how to avoid those processes.” In light of the School’s petition, I find that 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, 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, Mr. Epstein 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: Gideon Epstein