Collins, Cynthia v. Amesbury, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20260042)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 21, 2026 SPR26/0042 Joan Liporto Director of Finance and Operations Amesbury Public School District 5 Highland Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Dear Ms. Liporto: I have received the petition of Cynthia Collins appealing the response of the Amesbury Public School District (District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 5, 2025, Ms. Collins sought the following related to “the Amesbury Innovation High School (“AIHS”) boiler incident that occurred on October 30, 2025” for the period of “October 25, 2025 through December 5, 2025”: [1] Communications Related to the October 30, 2025 Boiler Incident – Please provide all [School] emails, texts, letters, notes, drafts, attachments, or internal communications involving: [a] The discovery of the boiler malfunction or damage[;] [b] Reports of water intrusion or concerns related to asbestos or lead[;] [c] Safety determinations, building occupancy decisions, or temporary relocation discussions[;] [d] Any communication between [the School] and the Fire Department, Board of Health, Inspectional Services, or City Hall regarding the incident[;] [d] This includes communications sent or received by: [six identified individuals][;] [2] Communications with the Landlord All Saints Anglican Church[:] [a] Provide all records, including emails, texts, letters, memos, attachments and drafts exchanged between [the School] and [an identified individual][,] [a]ny member of the Vestry[,] [and] [a]ny representative, trustee, property manager, or agent acting on behalf of the church[;] [b] Topics that include: [i] Notice of the boiler incident[;] [ii] Required repairs, emergency mitigation, or safety concerns[;] 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

Joan Liporto SPR26/0042 Page 2 January 21, 2026 [iii] Lease obligations, rent status, rent payment, rent suspension, or discussions of withholding rent[;] [iv] Requests for inspection access, coordination with contractors, or delays in communication[;] [v] Any discussion regarding potential termination, negotiation, or amendment of the lease agreement[;] [3] Internal Amesbury Public School Discussions Regarding the Lease of Rent [a] Provide all internal [School] communications referencing: [i] The AIHS lease agreement[;] [ii] Rent payment status or any decision to suspend, modify, or dispute rent[;] [iii] Concerns about building safety impacting lease viability[;] [iv] Discussions of relocating AIHS due to the incident or lease issues[;] [v] Communications related to legal review of lease obligations[;] [4] Records Related to inspections, Safety Assessments, and Re-Occupancy Decisions [a] Provide all internal and external [School] communications regarding[:] [i] Fire Department inspection findings[;] [ii] Board of Health guidance[;] [iii] Inspectional Services assessments[;] [iv] Air quality testing, asbestos concerns, lead paint concerns, or environmental health evaluations[;] [v] Any decision-making process regarding reopening, restricting access, or remaining closed[;] [b] This includes drafts, notes, internal discussions, emails, texts, voicemails, and attachments[;] [5] Communications Between [School] and Amesbury City Government [a] Provide all communications between [the School] and[:] [i] [An identified individual] and Mayor’s Office staff[;] [ii] City Clerk Office[;] [iii] Public Health Department[;] [iv] [An identified individual] and A[me]sbury Fire Department[;] [v] Inspectional Services[;] [b] Pertaining to: [t]he October 30 incident[;] [t]he condition of the building[;] [s]afety status[;] [t]he lease[;] [r]ent[;] [and] [a]ny concerns about [School] transparency, responsiveness, or compliance[.] The District responded on December 19, 2025, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the District’s response, Ms. Collins petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0042, was opened as a result.

Joan Liporto SPR26/0042 Page 3 January 21, 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). The District’s December 19th Response In its December 19, 2025 response, the District provided a total fee estimate of $591.57 to provide the responsive records. In support of the fee estimate, the District stated as follows: . . . The District has not yet complete[d] the search for, compilation, segregation, redaction, or reproduction of all of these records because due to the large number of responsive records, the process for completing this response would take a substantial amount of time at a significant cost to the District. In addition, records responsive to these requests are likely to contain a substantial amount of confidential and otherwise exempt information, all of which must be segregated and/or redacted prior to producing any responsive records to you… Because we are a public school district, any search of our email system is likely to return emails about students, particularly when the search parameters are broad and there are potentially thousands of results, so we must always review records to ensure that no student record information is contained in them. Information about a particular student and information which identifies or could be used to identify a particular student is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a)…with the relevant statutory authority being M.G.L. c.71, §§34D and 34E, as implemented through 603 CMR 23.07(4), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g…. While the [District] has not completed its review, segregation, redaction and reproduction of all potentially responsive records pending payment of the fee identified below,

Joan Liporto SPR26/0042 Page 4 January 21, 2026 any records must be reviewed to ascertain whether they contain such exempt information and, if so, those records must be withheld or redacted by law under Exemption (a). Your requests seek communications involving school administrators and/or officials who are likely to have communicated with the District’s legal counsel regarding the subject matter of your requests, and some requests specifically seek communications with legal counsel. To the extent responsive records may include materials created by legal counsel and communicated to the District as its client or other information which is privileged as attorney-client communications, such information would be protected from disclosure under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a)…. As such, these records must be segregated and redacted of any attorney-client privileged communications prior to production. Communications between employee organizations and their members may be present on the District’s email server and returned in a broad search such as what is requested, any such communications they are not public records and are exempt from disclosure under M.G.L. c.150E, §5A and M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a). In addition, many responsive records are likely to also include private information exempt under the privacy exemption of M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c)…. A records custodian must apply the balancing test to each piece of potentially private information in any response records. Any records for which the public interest does not outweigh the privacy interest must be redacted prior to production and/or withheld in their entirety Without limitation, private information in responsive records is likely to include personal email addresses and other contact information contained in any communications. This information must be redacted as exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a)…and M.G.L. c.150E, §5A(d), which provide that a public employee’s home/personal addresses, email address, and telephone number and date of birth are not public records, as well as pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c)… This personal contact information may also be exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(o) or (p), to the extent applicable. Finally, please note that because the response process has not been completed, the potential exemptions listed above are illustrative but not exhaustive. Given the broad scope of your requests and the employees from whom records are sought, we expect additional exempt information may be discovered during the course of review of the potentially responsive records, including without limitation intellectual property (a), executive session materials (a), personnel records (c), medical records (c), attorney work product or other deliberative materials (d), personal notes (e), investigatory materials (f), and/or security information (n). The

Joan Liporto SPR26/0042 Page 5 January 21, 2026 letters in the parentheses refer to the corresponding exemption in M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)… …the City of Amesbury had a population fewer than 20,000 and, as such, the District may charge you for all time involved in responding you your request… Given the nature and complexity of the exemptions, privileges, and confidentiality requirements cited above…the lowest paid employee of the District who could continue the search…would be a member of the District’s central office staff and/or IT department, all of whom are compensated at rates exceeding $25.00 per hour. As such, any further time spent completing the response process will be charged at the maximum rate of $25.00 per hour. Given the number of requests you have made and the various accounts and topics you have listed, responding to your request would likely require multiple searches in order to compile all documents. However, based on the District’ experience responding to public records requests and the process described in this letter, we estimate that it will take approximately 5 hours of total employee time to fully search for and compile all of the records you have requested… Although your request does not include the specificity required by law, we estimate that if we choose search terms that are as broad as possible to identify all records that reference AIHS or its boiler…there will be at least 1000 pages of responsive documents…we estimate that it will take on average a minimum of 1 minute per page to fully review, segregate, redact, and reproduce each record in accordance with applicable law…. For at least 1000 pages at 1 minute per page, we estimate this will take at least 16 hours and 40 minutes. Finally, we would save these documents to another file for production to you, and then convert and reproduce them to a format complaint with applicable law, which we estimate would take another 2 hours. Based on the above, it would take an estimated additional 23 hours and 40 minutes of total employee time to complete the District’s search for, compilation, review, segregation, redaction and reproduction of all requested records, for a total initial fee of $591.67 (23.67 hours x $25.00/hour). … …we invite you to narrow your requests to provide more specificity, additional information about any particular documents you are seeking, or to request a different search in order to potentially reduce the cost of this response… Current Appeal In her appeal petition, Ms. Collins stated the following:

Joan Liporto SPR26/0042 Page 6 January 21, 2026 [1] The Request is Narrow, Discrete, and Sufficiently Particular [a] The request is limited to a clearly defined 39-day timeframe…and concerns a single, discrete incident… [2] APS Misapplies the Case Law It Cites… [3] The Fee Estimate Is Based on Speculation, Not Demonstrated Burden [a] APS’s estimate assumes the existence of at least 1,000 pages of responsive records and assigns a minimum of one minute per page for review, without providing search logs, sampling, or other evidence demonstrating that such volume exists… [4] The Fee Estimate Lacks the Required Task-Level Breakdown… [5] Prior Search Time and Scope Are Unclear… [6] The Request Does Not Require Creation of New Records or Custom Datasets… Reasonableness of the fee estimate Although the District has estimated it would take 5 hours to complete the search and compilation process, it is unclear why the District requires this many hours to search for and compile the records. Additionally, the District estimates that it will take 16 hours and 40 minutes to segregate and redact the records. However, it is unclear the actual number of pages that the District intends to segregate or redact although the Distinct assumes there would be at least 1000 pages. Accordingly, the District must provide further details regarding its fee estimate. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable). In the District’s response, it appears to be assessing a fee for redactions under attorney- client privilege and Exemptions (a), (c), (o), and (p) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, §7(26)(a), (c), (o), (p). However, the District also claims that records may be redacted under Exemptions (d), (e), and (f) of the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 4, §7(26)(d), (e), (f). Under the Public Records Law, a fee may 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 pursuant to a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The District must clarify whether its December 19th fee estimate includes charges for segregation and redaction which is not required by law. In its fee estimate, the District states, “[f]inally, we would save these documents to another file for production to [Ms. Collins], and then convert and reproduce them to a format complaint with applicable law, which we estimate would take another 2 hours.” Based on the District’s response it is uncertain how it can assess a fee for time to save the records to another file and time to convert the records under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). The District must clarify how these tasks constitute time to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce records. This office encourages Ms. Collins and the District to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Ms. Collins may wish to narrow her request. The District 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

Joan Liporto SPR26/0042 Page 7 January 21, 2026 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. Collins 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. Ms. Collins may appeal the substantive nature of the District’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Cynthia Collins