Bradley Williams v. Belchertown, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253666)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records December 24, 2025 SPR25/3666 Heather Hammon Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Public Records Officer Belchertown Public Schools 14 Maple Street, P. O. Box 841 Belchertown, MA 01001 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 October 28, 2025, Mr. Williams requested “all text messages, emails and other written electronic communications created or received between January 1, 2023 and October 28, 2025 that contain any of the [identified] names or referencing any of [three identified individuals.]” Following further correspondence with the School, on November 18, 2025, Mr. Williams modified his request as follows: 1. Emails that reference [a named individual] by name, initial, description, disability category, or any identifiable description of her. 2. Emails that reference either parent by name or by role in relation to [the individual]. 3. Emails between district employees and external providers where an ROI is on file, such as [identified individuals]. 4. Emails sent or received by employees directly involved in [the individual]’s programming, including but not limited to [three named individuals], and the school counseling staff. 5. We do not seek drafts of emails, personal notes, or communications that are exempt under the law. 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 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 SPR25/3666 Page 2 December 24, 2025 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. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the School. See SPR25/3339 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 19, 2025). In my November 19th determination, I found it was unnecessary to opine on the School’s petition for an extension of time in light of Mr. Williams modifying his request, and the School subsequently responding to the modified request. The School responded to the modified request by providing a fee estimate to Mr. Williams on November 25, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. Williams petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3666, 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).

Heather Hammon SPR25/3666 Page 3 December 24, 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 November 25th Fee Estimate In its November 25, 2025 response, the School gives a total fee estimate of $1583.33. In its response, the School provides the following information in support of its fee estimate: With respect to your request, the District conducted a search in the time period requested, leads to a total of 3,920 pages of emails. The revised request did not change this estimate as each email will still need to be reviewed and redacted based on the prior search. . . . 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. . . . Accordingly, the records will need to be reviewed to determine if they contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege and then any necessary redactions will need to be made. 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. . . . [R]ecords 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

Heather Hammon SPR25/3666 Page 4 December 24, 2025 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 a specific student. These emails will need to be redacted for that student. 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. Segregation time includes the time used to review records to determine what portions are subject to redaction or withholding under G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) or other legally applicable privileges. Redaction time includes the time to delete, or otherwise remove that part of a public record that is exempt from disclosure under G. L. c. 4, § 7(26) or other legally applicable privileges from non-exempt material. The District estimates that it will take one minute per page to segregate and redact. As a result, the District estimates a total of 65.33 hours. You will not be charged for the first two hours for segregation and redaction at the rate of $25 per hour, yields a total fee estimate of $1583.33. The actual fee to produce these records may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary review and redaction process. The District will not begin to review the records you seek until it receives a check in the amount of $1583.33. Please be advised that your fee estimate may be reduced if you narrow the scope of your request (i.e. the period of time for the records you narrow the search to further individuals). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the information provided in the School’s November 25th 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 November 25th 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).

Heather Hammon SPR25/3666 Page 5 December 24, 2025 This office encourages Mr. Williams and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Williams may wish to narrow his 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 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). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Bradley Williams