Andrew Garcia v. Arlington, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253587)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 18, 2025 SPR25/3587 Robert M. Spiegel Human Resources Director/Records Access Officer Arlington Public Schools 14 Mill Brook Drive Arlington, MA 02476 Dear Mr. Spiegel: I have received the petition of Andrew Garcia appealing the response of the Arlington 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). Between September 8, 2025 and September 11, 2025, Mr. Garcia submitted 329 public records requests. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the School. See SPR25/2775 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2025). In my September 26th determination I found that the School had met its burden for an extension of time, and to assess fees for segregation and redaction of the records. Subsequently, on October 2, 2025, Mr. Garcia modified his requests as follows: 1. All pending requests are withdrawn except those directly related to METCO budgeting and financial records. . . . 2. As a courtesy, all communications-related requests are withdrawn at this time. These will be resubmitted in a more digestible and efficient format, with an effort to ensure your office does not receive more than a few requests on any given day or week. Also on October 2nd, Mr. Garcia provided a list of approximately 27 requests which he wished to remain open. Subsequently, the School responded on October 14, 2025, providing numerous responsive records. 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

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/3587 Page 2 December 18, 2025 From October 20 through October 25, 2025, Mr. Garcia resubmitted approximately 40 of the previously withdrawn requests. Unsatisfied with the School’s responses, Mr. Garcia petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3587, was opened as a result. 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).

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/3587 Page 3 December 18, 2025 The School’s October 1st and October 14th Responses In its October 1, 2025 response, the School asked Mr. Garcia to clarify which of his requests remained open. Following further correspondence with Mr. Garcia, in its October 14, 2025 response, the School provided numerous responsive records. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Garcia states among other things, the following: Between October 20 and October 25, 2025, I submitted a series of narrow, date- bounded micro-requests that replaced the withdrawn portion of the September submissions. Each microrequest was: - Limited to a single school employee, - Focused on express date ranges, - Designed to fall well under the two-hour free labor threshold, and - Staggered over several days to avoid overwhelming APS. Despite these good-faith efforts to make compliance easier, APS has not issued any legally compliant responses, has not produced records, and in several cases has not responded at all. . . . APS did not issue written responses for the majority of the September requests and provided no response whatsoever to the October micro-requests. Modification and Timeframe for Providing Records Mr. Garcia is advised that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. The School is advised that G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that . . . for a municipality the timeframe shall not exceed 25 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records; and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where the School has previously responded to some of Mr. Garcia’s requests, and Mr. Garcia submitted his modified requests from October 20th through October 25th, it is unclear

Robert M. Spiegel SPR25/3587 Page 4 December 18, 2025 whether the School has provided responsive records, or provided a fee estimate, concerning the modified requests. Consequently, it is unclear whether the School has met its burden in responding to the requests in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). The School must clarify this. Where Mr. Garcia and the School have both shown a willingness to modify the scope of the request, this office encourages Mr. Garcia and the School to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Garcia may consider further narrowing the scope of his request 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 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 Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Garcia with a response to the 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. Mr. Garcia may further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Garcia