Bradley Williams v. Belchertown, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253665)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 17, 2025 SPR25/3665 Heather Hammon Records Access Officer Belchertown Public Schools 14 Maple Street P. O. Box 841 Belchertown, MA 01007 Dear Ms. Hammon: I have received the petition of Bradley Williams appealing the response of the Belchertown Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 19, 2025, Mr. Williams requested the following: This request seeks a distinct category of records tied specifically to the district’s internal communications and data-gathering activities related to the IEP process for [a named individual], during the period September 2, 2025 through November 20, 2025. We are not requesting information about any other student. If any responsive record includes references to another student, we expect only that portion to be redacted. Records Requested (New Request) 1. Emails and internal communications referencing [the named individual] (Sept. 2 – Nov. 20) Please provide all emails, internal messages, and communications sent or received between September 2, 2025 and November 20, 2025 by the following personnel that reference [the named individual]: [a] Superintendent . . . [b] Director of Student Support Services . . . [c] Team Leader Coordinator . . . [d] Principal . . . [e] Adjustment Counselors . . . [f] LSP Teacher . . . [g] Any classroom teacher who submitted documents or was contacted as part of the preparation for the November 20 IEP meeting, including those asked to 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

Heather Hammon SPR25/3665 Page 2 December 17, 2025 provide counts, tallies, or statements regarding [the named individual]’s use of accommodations or counseling services 2. Communications assigning or initiating data collection after the September 2, 2025 IEP meeting Please provide any emails, directives, or internal messages that: [a] assigned staff to collect data related to [the named individual]’s services [b] requested data from teachers or counselors [c] initiated or organized data-gathering efforts [d] responded to staff inquiries about data collection [e] discussed how to reconstruct, produce, or verify the tallies provided to parents This includes communications among administrators, counselors, and teachers, and communications sent in preparation for the facilitated IEP meeting. 3. Records used to generate the tallies provided on November 19, 2025 Please provide all underlying documents, emails, or communications that were used to create, confirm, or substantiate the tallies provided by [an individual] on November 19, including: [a] teacher responses [b] counts or summaries [c] internal drafts or compilations [d] notes or spreadsheets [e] messages verifying specific dates or frequencies 4. Any record showing data collection actually occurred between Sept. 2 and Nov. 20 This includes: [a] logs [b] checklists [c] notes [d] spreadsheets [e] documentation of accommodations or counseling access [f] any contemporaneous records demonstrating service delivery If no such documentation exists, “no responsive records” is an acceptable response. Not Requested We are not requesting: attorney–client communications staff personal notes not shared with others newsletters, listserv traffic, mass mailings communications unrelated to [the named individual] Rationale Because numerical tallies were provided on November 19 following concerns about missing service documentation, and because these tallies appeared to rely

Heather Hammon SPR25/3665 Page 3 December 17, 2025 on recent communications, we are requesting the underlying records to ensure transparency and accuracy in the educational record. The School responded on December 3, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Objecting to the fees, Mr. Williams petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3665, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that the reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Williams’ status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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).

Heather Hammon SPR25/3665 Page 4 December 17, 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 December 3rd Fee Estimate In its December 3, 2025 response, the School gives a fee estimate totaling $519.16, and provides the following explanation of the fees: With respect to your request, the District conducted a search in the time period requested, leads to a total of 1366 pages of emails and documents. Grounds For Redaction These documents need to be redacted. First, the District has consulted with its attorney on this case. Where the request would encompass records related to such services provided by the District’s outside legal counsel, these records likely contain the content of discussions between the District and its attorneys, for purpose of obtaining legal advice, which has not been shared with the public and is therefore protected by the attorney-client privilege. . . . Second, the request included confidential student record information which is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law. Specifically, it requests the information of particular students. . . . Like the agreement at issue in Champa, records responsive to your request contain information on public school students who enjoy mandated confidentiality; indeed, such documents, if released, would reveal the identities of students and the fact that these students have disabilities. As a result, these records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemption (a) because, as noted by Champa, state and federal regulations compel the District to protect educational records from disclosure. Specifically, they are protected by the Federal Education Rights Privacy Act, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 34A to 34H, and 603 CMR 23.00 et. seq. You requested the information on specific students. These emails will need to be redacted for those students. . . .

Heather Hammon SPR25/3665 Page 5 December 17, 2025 Calculation of Fee Estimate . . . In this case, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to segregate and redact the records requested is a salaried employee whose effective hourly rate exceeds $25 per hour. In accordance with 950 CMR 37.02(2)(m)(l), you will not be charged for the first two (2) hours of those services and will only be charged at a rate of $25 per hour. Each document must be reviewed to determine if it should be segregated and redacted. . . . The District estimates that it will take one minute per page to segregate and redact. As a result, the District estimates a total of 22.76 hours. You will not be charged for the first two hours. Twenty hours for segregation and redaction at the rate of $25 per hour, yields a total fee estimate of $519.16. The actual fee to produce these records may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary review and redaction process. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the information provided in the School’s December 3rd response, the School has explained that it is only assessing fees for segregation and redaction required by law, and has explained the amount of time required to segregate and redact the records. Further, the School has confirmed that it will not charge for the first two hours of work, and has also confirmed that it is assessing a fee at the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skills to perform the tasks. In light of the School’s December 3rd response, I find the School has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to segregate and redact the records responsive to this request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). This office encourages Mr. Williams and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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 As set forth above, I find the School has met its burden in responding to Mr. Williams’ request at this time. Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Williams 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. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).

Heather Hammon SPR25/3665 Page 6 December 17, 2025 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bradley Williams