Andrew Garcia v. Arlington, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20253841)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 14, 2026 SPR25/3841 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 and Appeal These requests were the subject of a petition from the School, and a previous appeal. See SPR25/2775 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (September 26, 2025) and SPR25/3587 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 18, 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 All pending requests are withdrawn except those directly related to METCO budgeting and financial records.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 As a courtesy, all communications-related requests are withdrawn at this time.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 Spiegel SPR25/3841 Page 2 January 14, 2026 From October 20 through October 25, 2025, Mr. Garcia resubmitted approximately 40 of the previously withdrawn requests. In my December 18th determination, I found it was unclear whether the School had provided responsive records, or provided a fee estimate concerning the modified requests. Subsequently, the School responded on December 29, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Garcia petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/3841, 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).

Robert Spiegel SPR25/3841 Page 3 January 14, 2026 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). Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Garcia contends, among other things, the following: The District admits to receiving the subject requests between October 13, 2025, and October 29, 2025, yet failed to issue any determination whatsoever until December 29, 2025, a delay spanning approximately 40 to 55 business days. This protracted delay constitutes a flagrant violation of the mandatory timeline established by M.G.L. c. 66, § 10(b), which requires a response “within 10 business days.” . . . MBOX files are the native export format for the District’s email systems and allow for automated export without manual printing. Unnecessary Conversion: The District unilaterally decided to convert these electronic records into PDF format, necessitating a manual, page-by-page review that the District claims will take approximately 500 hours. G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) G. L. c. 66, § 10(e) provides that “[a] records access officer shall not charge a fee for a public record unless the records access officer responded to the requestor within 10 business days under subsection (b).” In its October 1, 2025 response, the School requested “further clarification of which specific requests remain open, and for which time frame or time frames are those records requested,” and on October 2, 2025, Mr. Garcia modified his requests. In its October 14, 2025 response, the School provided numerous responsive records. In this case, although the School responded to the October 2nd modified requests on October 14, 2025, within 10 business days, the School has not demonstrated that it responded to the requests submitted between October 13, 2025 and October 29, 2025 under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) within 10 business days of receipt of the requests. The School’s December 29th Fee Estimate In its December 29, 2025 response, the School provides a total fee estimate of $14,225 for additional records responsive to the modified requests, and provides the following explanation: Between October 13, 2025 and October 29, 2025, you submitted 448 separate public records requests for emails and communications between employees of the

Robert Spiegel SPR25/3841 Page 4 January 14, 2026 Arlington Public Schools (“District”) and other employees or outside people. . . . As I was preparing a response to your requests, you submitted a request for review to the Supervisor of Public Records. As you then placed this matter in the jurisdiction of the Supervisor of Public Records, I was waiting for their determination before responding. The SPR issued a determination on December 18, 2025. Therefore, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, this letter serves as the District’s response to your request and in compliance with SPR’s order dated December 18, 2025[.] The District possesses records responsive to your request. The email and communication requests are sent in separate emails. Each request seeks emails and communications for a two-month period. You have asked for email communications between the following people... The School provides a list of 24 sets of individuals, and for each set indicates that Mr. Garcia “sent multiple requests seeking the communications in two month increments starting on July 1, 2022 and continuing to September 29, 2025.” The School goes on to explain the following: This request involves reviewing many emails from multiple accounts. . . . The good faith fee estimate associated with the production of these records is as follows: Item Estimated Time Rate Estimated Cost Review and 571 hours $25.00 per hour $14,275 redaction time Credit for first two 2 hours $25.00 per hour $50 hours of time Total estimated cost 498 hours $25.00 per hour $14,225 The District estimates that because of the amount of information exempt under G.L. c. 4, §7(26) will take an average of one to one and a half (1- 1.5) minutes to review and redact each page. Our preliminary search of emails generated approximately 34,300 emails. We will need to carefully read each page, make the necessary determinations regarding whether the record contains exempt information, redact any confidential information contained in the records if found, and the possibility that other individuals may need to be consulted throughout this process. Assuming that each page will take a minimum of 1 - 1.5 minutes to review, I calculated for estimate purposes that assuming a one (1) minute review time, it will take approximately 500 hours to review and redact all of the records.

Robert Spiegel SPR25/3841 Page 5 January 14, 2026 Each document must be reviewed before it may be provided to you where many of the responsive documents meet the following exemption set forth in G.L. c. 4, § 7(26): - Exemption (a) - All of the individuals whose emails you requested frequently communicate with staff and parents about students. Therefore, these communications implicate student record/education record information under 603 CMR 23.00 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) in containing student information that must be redacted. - Attorney-Client Privileged Communications - The communications to and from the individuals whose emails your requested contain references to attorney-client privileged communications that must be redacted to preserve the privilege. In the event the actual time to review and redact the requested records is less than the estimate provided, the District will refund a portion of your payment accordingly. Similarly, in the event the actual time to review and redact the requested records is greater than the estimate provided, the District reserves the right to require you to pay an additional fee before releasing any responsive records. The District intends to produce all records responsive to your request, withholding only records and portions of records, if any, that do not constitute public records per the exemptions enumerated by the public records law or that are protected by other legally applicable privileges. If any such records or portions of records are eventually withheld by the District, the District will provide you with the specific reasons and exemptions upon which any withholdings are based. I currently estimate 25 business days to be the minimum reasonable timeframe for the District to produce the requested records to you. Once you have paid the above good faith fee estimate in full, the District will begin to process your request. Payment may be made by check in the amount of $14,225 payable to Arlington Public Schools, mailed or delivered to Robert Spiegel, Records Access Officer, 14 Mill Brook Drive, Arlington, MA 02476. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames 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

Robert Spiegel SPR25/3841 Page 6 January 14, 2026 expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. 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. In light of the School’s response, where its “. . . preliminary search of emails generated approximately 34,300 emails[,]” this office encourages Mr. Garcia and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Garcia may consider narrowing the scope of his requests 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). Please note, a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Garcia and the School communicate further as described above, Mr. Garcia may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1).

Robert Spiegel SPR25/3841 Page 7 January 14, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Andrew Garcia