Copeland, Dave v. Andover, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260039)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 12, 2026 SPR26/0039 Nicole L. Kieser Records Access Officer Andover Public Schools 30 Whittier Court Andover, MA 01810 Dear Ms. Kieser: On January 6, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Andover Public Schools (School) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). As required by law, it is my understanding that the School furnished a copy of the petition to the requestor, Dave Copeland. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On December 27, 2025, Mr. Copeland requested: [1] The district’s current Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan, and all prior versions, including adoption and revision dates. [2] All School Committee policies relating to bullying, cyberbullying, and retaliation (including current and historical versions, commonly labeled JICFB/JICK or equivalent), and any related revision histories. [3] Student and staff handbook language addressing bullying and cyberbullying, by school and by academic year. [4] School Committee agenda items, minutes, and supporting materials related to bullying policies, prevention plans, or compliance with state anti-bullying law. [5] Training materials used for bullying prevention or intervention (agendas, slides, handouts, vendor contracts), including dates such training was conducted. [6] Records identifying designated staff roles responsible for bullying prevention and response (titles only; names may be redacted). 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

Nicole L. Kieser SPR26/0039 Page 2 January 12, 2026 [7] De-identified incident logs or aggregate data related to bullying, cyberbullying, and retaliation, by school and academic year, including disposition categories where available. [8] Summary disciplinary outcome data associated with substantiated bullying incidents (e.g., aggregate counts of responses or interventions), with personally identifiable information redacted. [9] Formal complaints or grievances related to bullying or retaliation, in redacted form. [10] Written investigation procedures, protocols, or templates used by the district in responding to bullying reports. [11] Correspondence or guidance received from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education regarding bullying prevention, compliance, or implementation (excluding student-specific information). [12] Any public records request logs relating to bullying or student discipline. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). It is my determination that this request was not made for a commercial purpose. The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id.

Nicole L. Kieser SPR26/0039 Page 3 January 12, 2026 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). Current Petition In its petition, in addition to charging for segregation and redaction required by law under Exemption (a), the School argues the following in support of its request to charge for segregation and redaction under Exemptions (c) and (o): …the requested records must be redacted where many of the responsive documents will meet the below inclusive, not exhaustive, exemptions set forth in G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)… Exemption (c): The requested documents, particularly complaints of bullying, contain information and other materials/data relating to specifically named individuals, particularly minor children, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy… Here, the public interest does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of the invasion of privacy addressed below. If these complaints were disclosed, it would create dissension between parties to resulting investigations and potentially create stigma against targets of such behaviors. The District maintains a Bullying Plan and non-discrimination policies to address the public interest in how those complaints are handled. Accordingly, the public interest in obtaining these documents does not substantially outweigh the seriousness of any invasion of privacy… Here, the PETA balancing test results in a finding that disclosing these categories of information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. As to the

Nicole L. Kieser SPR26/0039 Page 4 January 12, 2026 first element, disclosure of information concerning experiences of bullying and retaliation would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Disclosure of these types of experiences can subject individuals to stigma, and this is especially true for elementary-age students given their level of vulnerability. The District specifically provides methods of reporting these complaints in a way to maintain their confidentiality and limit any resulting embarrassment, stigma or retaliation. As to the second element, the materials contain intimate details of a highly personal nature. As addressed above, complaints of experiences of bullying, retaliation, hostility and discrimination are the exact types of details that can potentially lead to stigma and impact an individual’s reputation… It is also well- settled that information about a child’s educational needs and progress “is highly personal, and disclosure may result in embarrassment and potentially lead to stigma, bringing it within the scope of exemption (c).” Champa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86, 97 (2015). As to the third element, the same information is not available from other sources. Exemption (o): The requested documents contain… home addresses, personal email addresses and home telephone numbers of public employees. The redaction of the requested documents requires both knowledge in law and knowledge of the facts at issue. Accordingly, the records requested must be reviewed and redacted by an individual who is knowledgeable, well-versed and trained in case law responsive to Exemptions (a), (c), and (o) and specifically, how the Supervisor of Public Records and courts have interpreted the type of information that may be redacted and applying those decisions to the requested record… The purpose of assessing fees is to simply offset the costs that will be charged to the District in responding to this request and ensure that the District can properly redact information as required by G. L. c. 4, §7(26). Moreover, the District represents that it is more than willing, consistent with its obligation under G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii), to communicate with the requestor to suggest reasonable modifications of the scope of the request that would enable more efficient and affordable record access. However, to the extent that the requestor is not willing to further modify the scope of the request or only agrees to modify the request leniently, the District seeks to assess fees for the records requested in this matter. In light of the School’s petition, I find the School has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without redaction or segregation. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). To the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material.

Nicole L. Kieser SPR26/0039 Page 5 January 12, 2026 Further, please be advised, records custodians may assess fees for time spent segregating or redacting records where such segregation or redaction is required by law. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(d) (stating that fee for segregation or redaction is permissible when approved by the Supervisor or when required by law (emphasis added)). Where the School also seeks to assess fees for segregation and redaction pursuant to Exemption (a), which is required by law, I find it unnecessary to opine on the portion of the School’s petition seeking permission to assess fees for segregating and redacting the records pursuant to Exemption (a). Conclusion Accordingly, I find that to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. This office encourages Mr. Copeland and the School to continue to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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). Any subsequent fee estimate from the School must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Mr. Copeland has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Dave Copeland