Kristen Maxwell v. Methuen Public Schools (SPR 20253396)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 24, 2025 SPR25/3396 Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. Superintendent Methuen Public Schools 9 Branch Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Dr. Kwong: On November 17, 2025, this office received your petition on behalf of the Methuen Public Schools (School/District) 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 School furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Kristen Maxwell. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On November 3, 2025, Ms. Maxwell requested “all email and text communications sent or received between [an identified individual], the Mayor, and all members of the Methuen School Committee from August 26, 2024 and 11/03/2025” Open Appeal This request is also currently the subject of an appeal. See SPR25/3408. A determination will be issued separately within ten business days of receipt of the appeal. 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 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

Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. SPR25/3396 Page 2 November 24, 2025 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 District requests an additional 30 business days beyond the time specified under the statute (25 business days) - for a total of 55 business days from the date of receipt payment, to respond to the request.” The School provides the following information in support of its request: Given the volume of potentially responsive records which require detailed review and redaction, the District submits that it is not reasonable to require it to produce the responsive records within 10 business days. Therefore, the District 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 has many other responsibilities which they cannot ignore. The District will be unable to complete its review, redaction, and production of records during normal business hours of operation without an extension. In light of the need to collect, segregate and examine the records, as well as the capacity of the School 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)-(iii). The School is granted an extension of 30 business days.

Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. SPR25/3396 Page 3 November 24, 2025 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 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).

Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. SPR25/3396 Page 4 November 24, 2025 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 permission to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law: The records sought in the request need to be reviewed and potentially redacted. In addition to charging a fee for redactions required by law, specifically federal and state laws that obligate the District to maintain the confidentiality of attorney- client privileged communications, medical information, and personally- identifying student information, the District seeks the ability to charge for redactions under Exemption (c), which requires withholding or redacting records which contain “personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Given the nature of the requests, the responsive records may contain personnel or medical information, or information the release of which could constitute an invasion of personal privacy for District employees. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep't of Agric. Res., 4 77 Mass. 208, 292 (2017) (weighing privacy interests versus public interest by assessing “(1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities, (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature, and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources”). Given the role of the School Committee, Mayor, and Superintendent in employment and personnel decisions of District employees, the District anticipates there may be a need to redact exempt personnel and private information from these records, along with exemptions pursuant to state and federal law. 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). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Conclusion Accordingly, I find the School 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 School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). This office encourages Ms. Maxwell and the School to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii).

Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. SPR25/3396 Page 5 November 24, 2025 Please note, Ms. Maxwell 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: Kristen Maxwell