Brittany Dudley Cesan v. Southwick-Tolland Regional School District (SPR 20253524)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 15, 2025 SPR25/3524 Betsy Tetreault Human Resource Specialist Southwick-Tolland-Granville Regional School District 86 Powder Mill Road Southwick, MA 01077 Dear Ms. Tetreault: I have received the petition of Brittany Dudley appealing the responses of the Southwick- Tolland-Granville Regional School District (School/District) to requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On July 9, 2025, Ms. Dudley requested the following: All written and electronic communications (including emails, internal memos, letters, meeting notes, and any digital messages) that reference or relate to me in connection with: - My candidacy and interview process for the High School Guidance Counselor position at Southwick Regional School - The search committee’s communications and deliberations regarding that role - The offer of employment extended to me for that position - Any discussions or decisions to modify or change my role before my official start date - The reassignment of my position to 7th and 8th Grade Adjustment Counselor - Any internal discussion or documentation related to the decision to terminate or release me from employment - My expressed concerns regarding treatment by Ms. Shorter - Communications from or to Human Resources related to me, my role, employment status, concerns raised, or job title - Any written summaries, reports, or meeting notes that mention me or my employment 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

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/3524 Page 2 December 15, 2025 The School responded on July 9, 2025 and July 11, 2025, providing numerous responsive records. On July 14, 2025, Ms. Dudley modified her request, as follows: [A]ll documents, emails, text messages, internal communications, memos, meeting notes, and any other written or digital records that reference me, my name, my position, or pertain to the circumstances surrounding my employment or termination/layoff. This includes, but is not limited to correspondence: - Between other parties (not just those involving me directly) that discuss me, my job performance, or my position - Related to the decision-making process behind my layoff - Referencing my name, my role, or any job-related discussions - On any platform or device, including personal devices if used for public business Additionally, Ms. Dudley requested “all text messages sent or received on [a specified individual’s cellular] device that mention me, my role, or anything related to my employment or dismissal.” The School responded on July 21, 2025, providing additional responsive records. On July 22, 2025, Ms. Dudley requested the following: [A]ll text messages and other electronic communications sent or received by [a second specified individual] concerning any matter related to the Southwick- Tolland Regional School District from August 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. This request includes but is not limited to both district-issued and personal devices or accounts paid for by and used for school-related business. The School responded on July 28, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Previous Appeals These requests were the subject of previous appeals. See SPR25/2336; SPR25/2338 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 22, 2025). In my August 22nd determination, I encouraged the parties to communicate directly in order to provide records more efficiently and affordably. I also suggested that Ms. Dudley may consider narrowing the scope of her request, and that the School must use its superior knowledge of the records in order to suggest potential modifications to the request. Following further communication between Ms. Dudley and the School, the School responded on September 4, 2025, providing a revised fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, and objecting to the fees, Ms. Dudley petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3524, was opened as a result.

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/3524 Page 3 December 15, 2025 The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. 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). 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).

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/3524 Page 4 December 15, 2025 Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Dudley contends: Despite your office’s prior intervention, the District has not provided the requested public records or a lawful explanation for withholding them, only that I would need to pay a fee exceeding $200,000 before any review could begin. At first, the District produced only a few emails and a few pages. Now they claim there are thousands of messages to review and are effectively saying I must either accept their limited production or pay an astronomical fee of roughly $200,000. That demand is unjust, disproportionate to my narrowly tailored request, and incompatible with the purpose of the Public Records Law. The fee suggests that over 4 years of full-time work will be required to provide the documents requested. In a “Background and Timeline” section included with her appeal petition, Ms. Dudley further contends the following: September/ Oct 2025: I attempted to narrow and clarify my request in good faith to reduce the scope and potential cost. Despite this, the District again insisted that a fee in the hundreds of thousands of dollars would be required to release the records. The District also began to play semantics with my wording, insisting that slight variations or minor spelling errors meant they did not need to process the request. Please note that in an email to the School on August 26, 2025, Ms. Dudley further expanded her requests as follows: To simplify, I will change my request to narrow your necessity to review many documents. I am first requesting the call detail sheets for [a named individual]’s paid town phone, limited to text messages. This will allow me to review those records and then submit a follow-up request specifying particular phone number to phone number texts I would like copies of. This step will greatly reduce the time needed for your review. In addition, I now request the call detail sheets for [a named individual]’s paid town phone, also limited to text messages. Please understand that at this time I do not have full confidence that I am receiving complete disclosure, so a cross- reference is necessary. Printing the call detail sheets for both phones for the requested months of August 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, should not take more than an hour per device, as each monthly call detail should take only a few minutes to generate. I am willing to pay the applicable fees for each sheet, consistent with the Secretary of State’s guidance. However, the printing of these in total should not take more than 2 hours.

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/3524 Page 5 December 15, 2025 In good faith, I also ask that you conduct a deeper review of emails and correspondence using the following key terms as a starting point; this process was a suggestion of the Secretary of State’s Office. [including a list of approximately eleven search terms] This will help determine the volume of relevant emails and correspondence. Once these documents are totaled, we can discuss the volume and the cost associated with their review. We both know that $224,000 is not a fair or accurate number. It would not take three full years at 7.5 hours a day to complete the request I originally submitted, and I believe the Secretary of State’s office has been generous in offering you the opportunity to sort this out. If this approach does not work, Betsy, I will be filing an appeal and pursuing next steps. Let us try to work together and be reasonable. I have taken steps here to compromise and streamline my request, and I expect the same in return. Please do not send another inflated or unreasonable dollar amount to start this process over. My original request is below: once you use those key terms above to search, I am looking for the below content. [including a copy of the July 9th request, cited above] The School’s September 4th Fee Estimate In its September 4, 20225 response, the School provides an increased fee estimate, covering the expanded August 26th request, totaling $397,464, and indicating it possesses tens of thousands of responsive records. The School also provides the following suggestion: To reduce the cost and scope of review, you may consider narrowing your request. For example, you could limit the search by specifying a shorter time frame, restricting the request to a single mailbox, or identifying more precise search terms. Narrowing the scope in this way may substantially reduce both the volume of responsive records and the associated processing cost. You may also elect to limit your request to a single search term, with payment based on the corresponding narrower estimate. For example, restricting the search to “Brittany Cesan.” Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames As explained in my previous determination, in Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner.

Betsy Tetreault SPR25/3524 Page 6 December 15, 2025 See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2. This office again encourages Ms. Dudley and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Dudley may consider narrowing the scope of her request, based on the suggestions provided in the School’s September 4th response, to enable the School to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The School must use its superior knowledge of the records to suggest any further potential reasonable modifications to the 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). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Dudley and the School communicate further as described above, Ms. Dudley may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Brittany Dudley