Kristen Maxwell v. Methuen Public Schools (SPR 20253408)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 3, 2025 SPR25/3408 Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Methuen Public Schools 9 Branch Street Methuen, MA 01844 Dear Dr. Kwong: I have received the petition of Kristen Maxwell appealing the response of the Methuen Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). 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 to 11/03/25.” Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the School. See SPR25/3396 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 24, 2025). In my November 24th determination, I granted the School an extension of 30 business days to respond to the request. Additionally, I found the School could assess a fee for segregation and redaction of exempt material under Exemption (c) in the responsive records. In conjunction with its November 17, 2025 petition, the School also provided Ms. Maxwell with a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s fee estimate, Ms. Maxwell petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3408, was opened as a result. 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). 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. SPR25/3408 Page 2 December 3, 2025 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). The School’s November 17th Fee Estimate In its November 17, 2025 response, the School assessed a fee of $797.92 to provide the responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the School stated: The District estimates that it will take approximately 33.9 hours to search for and compile records in response to your request. This calculation is based on an initial search of communications in the District’s possession through key word searches. Specifically, the District has identified 1,378 emails that include the Mayor and the Superintendent, and 657 emails that include the Superintendent and all School Committee members, in the requested timeframe. Responsive records may need to be segregated, redacted, or withheld pursuant to Section 7(26)(a), the statutory exemption, based on the District’s obligation to maintain the confidentiality of attorney-client privileged communication, medical information and personally- identifying student information, beyond directory information, under federal and state law and regulations (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 99; 603 CMR 23.00), as well as Section 7(26)(c), the privacy exemption, which exempts from disclosure personnel and medical information and any material or data the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The District estimates that it will take approximately 1 minute to review each potentially responsive email for purposes of compiling, segregating, and redacting. This equals 33.9 hours to search through approximately 2,035 records. The fee estimate to produce the records sought in the request is therefore $797.92 (i.e. ((33.9 - 2 Hours) X $25)). Further, in its November 17, 2025 petition, the School stated, “[b]ecause the District is within a community with a population of more than 20,000 people, it will not include the first two hours in its fee petition… [$25 per hour] is justified given that the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task has an effective hourly rate that exceeds $25 per hour.”

Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. SPR25/3408 Page 3 December 3, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Maxwell argued against the applicability of the School’s cited exemptions and stated that the fee was “excessive” and “unnecessary.” Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Where the School has explained the amount of time it requires to locate, segregate, and redact the requested records as required by law, and has confirmed that the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks is paid more than $25.00 per hour, I find that the School has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). Please also be advised, segregation and redaction under the attorney-client privilege is interpreted to be “required by law.” Further, where the School has confirmed that it is not assessing a fee for the first two (2) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the records requested, and where permission to assess a fee to segregate and redact exempt information under Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law has been approved by the Supervisor of Records in SPR25/3396, I find the School has met its burden to assess a fee under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). This office encourages the parties to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Maxwell may wish to narrow her request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a 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 municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate.

Brandi L. Kwong, Ed.D. SPR25/3408 Page 4 December 3, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms. Maxwell is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Kristen Maxwell