John McDonnell v. Andover, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253423)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records November 26, 2025 SPR25/3423 Nicole L. Kieser Records Access Officer Director of Communications Andover Public Schools 30 Whittier Court Andover, MA 01810 Dear Ms. Kieser: On November 19, 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, John McDonnell, Esq. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On September 30, 2025, Attorney McDonnell requested 19 categories of records concerning the School’s redistricting process. 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 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 SPR25/3423 Page 2 November 26, 2025 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 information in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (o). Upon review, it is my understanding that the subject matter of the request and the School’s petition are similar to those addressed in SPR25/3338 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 18, 2025). In my November 18th determination, I found that the School had not demonstrated that it submitted its petition within ten business days after receipt of the request. In an email to this office on November 19, 2025, a representative of the School requested that I reconsider my previous determination. This reconsideration request is currently opened as SPR25/3338. A determination on the matter will be issued within 15 business days of receipt of the School’s request for reconsideration.

Nicole L. Kieser SPR25/3423 Page 3 November 26, 2025 Conclusion In light of the above, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the School’s November 19, 2025 petition for permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John McDonnell, Esq.