John Arlauskas v. Winthrop, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253555)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 16, 2025 SPR25/3555 Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. Superintendent Winthrop Public Schools 1 Metcalf Square Winthrop, MA 02152 Dear Superintendent Howard: I have received the petition of John Arlauskas appealing the response of the Winthrop 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 15, 2025, Mr. Arlauskas requested the following: [1] Any and all records, documents, emails, memos, slide decks, internal guidance, training materials, protocols, or communications referencing implementation of DESE Dyslexia Guidance (2018, 2021, 2023)[;] [2] Any internal documents guiding early identification of students at risk for dyslexia in grades PK–3[;] [3] Any records related to early literacy screening procedures, tools, schedules, or processes used by the District[;] [4] Any internal guidance, written or electronic, describing how dyslexia risk indicators are monitored, tracked, or escalated[;] [5] Any documents describing typical minutes, frequency, duration, or structure of Tier 3 or IEP-based structured literacy interventions (K–5)[;] [6] Any guidance documents, templates, schedules, flowcharts, or manuals related to MTSS literacy decision-making[;] [7] Any documents describing escalation procedures when a student does not respond to Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention[;] [8] Any internal communications referencing MTSS literacy implementation, inconsistency, staffing, or decision processes[;] [9] Any records, logs, spreadsheets, lists, certifications, practicum documentation, renewal dates, or training records for staff who deliver dyslexia or structured literacy interventions[;] 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

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR25/3555 Page 2 December 16, 2025 [10] Any documents describing the District’s standards, criteria, or requirements for determining whether a staff member is qualified to provide structured literacy or Orton-Gillingham instruction[;] [11] Any internal communications discussing staff qualifications, shortages, training needs, or credential requirements related to reading intervention[;] [12] Any onboarding materials describing expectations for providers delivering reading interventions to students with dyslexia[;] [13] Any fidelity monitoring tools, checklists, observation protocols, walkthrough rubrics, coaching notes, or implementation logs used to assess fidelity of structured literacy instruction . . .[;] [14] Any internal documents describing how fidelity is monitored, supported, or evaluated[;] [15] Any emails, memos, or reports discussing fidelity concerns, monitoring procedures, or teacher support related to structured literacy programs[;] [16] Any documents describing administrative oversight responsibilities regarding dyslexia services, structured literacy, or MTSS literacy supports[;] [17] Any documents describing how structured literacy providers are assigned to students . . .[;] [18] Any documents showing actual caseloads for reading interventionists, structured literacy providers, OG providers, and reading specialists[;] [19] Any internal communication regarding staffing limitations, caseload challenges, or gaps in qualified providers for structured literacy[;] [20] Any multi-year planning documents or discussions related to increasing capacity in structured literacy or dyslexia services[;] [21] Any training requirements, memos, or internal documents describing prerequisites for staff to implement specific reading programs. . .[;] [22] Any documents showing how the District selects specific programs for individual students or groups . . .[;] [23] Any documents received from vendors or trainers describing expectations, training requirements, or implementation guidance for district staff[;] [24] Any documents describing tools used for early literacy or dyslexia-risk screening (K–2)[;] [25] Any documents describing the referral process when a student demonstrates risk indicators or persistent difficulty in phonological awareness, decoding, or fluency[;] [26] Any communications or memos related to early referral procedures, dyslexia risk flags, or screening outcomes[;] [27] Any documents identifying district or building administrators responsible for oversight of dyslexia, MTSS literacy, or structured literacy implementation[;] [28] Any internal presentations, reports, communications, or updates to the School Committee or district administration discussing dyslexia, literacy capacity, staffing, training, program implementation, or compliance with DESE literacy guidance.

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR25/3555 Page 3 December 16, 2025 The School responded on December 2, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Mr. Arlauskas petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR25/3166, was opened as a result. While this appeal was pending, Mr. Arlauskas noted that “the records at issue relate directly to an upcoming special education proceeding” in an email to this office on December 3, 2025. Further, the School provided additional information regarding its fee estimate in an email to this office on December 5, 2025. Fee Estimates – Municipalities 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. 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 two (2) 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). G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Appeal In his December 2, 2025 appeal petition, Mr. Arlauskas states that the School’s estimate “is facially unreasonable, inconsistent with the Public Records Law, and not supported by any specific itemization or rationale” and further contends that the School’s “blanket invocation of exemptions. . . violates G.L. c. 66, § 10. . .” Mr. Arlauskas additionally objects to the School’s request that he confirm, “if 40 business days from receipt of payment is agreeable for the response deadline” and asserts that the School’s “proposed 40-business-day delay is excessive and unsupported[.]”

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR25/3555 Page 4 December 16, 2025 The School’s December 2nd Fee Estimate and December 5th Correspondence In its December 2, 2025 response, the School cited a total fee estimate of $7,400.00 and confirmed that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. The School additionally provided the following in support of its fee estimate: [Your] record request . . . seeks private information regarding students or educators. According to exemption (c) of the Public Records Law. . . [where] your request is for intimate personal information, and there is no substantive public interest in disclosure, we cannot publish student names, student identifying information, or other identifying information. Moreover, any such responsive information likely would also be exempt from disclosure . . . pursuant to Section MGL c. 4, section 7(26)(a), based on the District’s obligation . . . under federal and state law and regulations (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 99; 603 CMR 23.00). . . . The district requires a fee of $7,400 . . . where there are voluminous responsive records and where the district will need to search for, compile, segregate, redact and reproduce the records. This fee is a good faith estimate . . . and is itemized as follows: (1) 226 hours to locate and review all responsive records, (2) 60 hour to segregate and redact protected portions, and (4) [sic] 10 hours to produce and/or compile the records for production. . . . If the district receives the necessary fee described above, then we will need additional time to respond to your request due to the difficulty of complying with your public record request. Please confirm if 40 business days from receipt of payment is agreeable for the response deadline. If you reject this proposed deadline, please confirm in writing. In its December 5, 2025 correspondence to this office, the School addressed the objections raised in Mr. Arlauskas’ December 2, 2025 appeal to this office. Specifically, in response to Mr. Arklaukas’ objections to what he describes in his appeal as the School’s “proposed 40-business-day delay[,]” the School states, “[this] is inaccurate.” The School clarifies that it “did not demand a 40-business-day deadline; it merely asked whether such a timeline would be acceptable.” Upon review, although the Town has estimated that the process to search for and review records for production will take 226 hours of employee time, it is unclear how the School requires this many hours to search for and review the responsive records. Further, where School states that it requires 60 hours to segregate and redact the responsive records, I find that it is unclear how many records there are, and the number of minutes per page the School requires to segregate and redact the responsive records. It is additionally unclear why the School requires ten hours to compile the records. As such, the School must provide additional information regarding the tasks involved in compiling the records for production. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). The School also states that the fee “[excludes] the first two hours of time spent

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR25/3555 Page 5 December 16, 2025 complying with the request[.]” However, based on the total fee provided, it remains unclear whether the School is assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time in responding to Mr. Arklaukas’ request. Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two (2) 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). Additionally, although the School claims that it is assessing a fee for redactions under 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 99; 603 CMR 23.00, as they operate under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, as well as Exemption (c), it is unclear how the Department can assess a fee for redactions under Exemption (c) in this matter. Under the Public Records Law, a fee may 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). I am not aware that the School has submitted a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As such, although the School may assess a fee for redactions required by law under Exemption (a), it is uncertain whether the fees include time to redact records under Exemption (c). The School must clarify these matters. With regard to Mr. Arklaukas’ objections regarding the School’s claims of exemptions, please be advised that where the School has yet to produce the records, I find these matters cannot be addressed at this time, as the contents of these records are unclear. Once records are provided, Mr. Arklaukas may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety calendar days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Further, with regard to Mr. Arklaukas’ objections regarding the School’s request for confirmation as to whether “40 business days from receipt of payment is agreeable for the response deadline[,]” please note that pursuant to G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi), “a records access officer may identify a reasonable timeframe in which the . . . municipality shall produce the public records sought; . . . provided . . . that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein.” Where the City indicated in its December 5th correspondence to this office that its request to Mr. Arklaukas regarding the 40-day timeline sought only his confirmation as to “whether such a timeline would be acceptable[,]” I find that this portion of Mr. Arklaukas’ appeal is unclear. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee assessed in its December 2nd estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). I encourage Mr. Arklaukas and the School to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably. Mr. Arklaukas may wish to narrow his request. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(i). The School must use its knowledge of the records to facilitate providing any responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § l0(a)(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 records sought more efficiently and affordably).

Lisa A. Howard, M.Ed. SPR25/3555 Page 6 December 16, 2025 Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Arlauskas with a response to his request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: John Arlauskas Tom Delmar, Esq.