Rounds, Joseph v. Canton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260084)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 23, 2026 SPR26/0084 Brian Lynch Records Access Officer Canton Public Schools 960 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Lynch: I have received the petition of Joseph E. Rounds appealing the response of the Canton 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 26, 2025, Mr. Rounds requested five categories of records, including multiple subcategories. On December 23, 2025, Mr. Rounds revised his request as follows: 1. Defined Timeframe Records created between September 1, 2018 and December 15, 2025. 2. Limited Custodians Emails and documents only involving the following District roles (excluding classroom teachers unless otherwise specified): - Superintendent - Assistant Superintendent - Principals and Assistant Principals - Guidance Counselors - Records Access Officer - District Legal Counsel (communications about me or my children, excluding privileged legal advice) 3. Limited Subject Matter Records containing any of the following specific terms, whether in the body, subject line, or attachments: [a list of approximately 12 search terms] 4. Categories of Records Requested - Internal emails discussing concerns, complaints, or incidents involving [specified individuals] - Internal summaries or notes prepared for administrators 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

Brian Lynch SPR26/0084 Page 2 January 23, 2026 - Communications related to mandated reporting decisions - Meeting notes or internal discussions regarding parent communication decisions - Draft emails or internal guidance regarding communication with me[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3644 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 23, 2025). In my December 23rd determination, I encouraged the parties to communicate in order to provide records more efficiently and affordably. Subsequently, Mr. Rounds modified the scope of his request as described above, and on January 5, 2026, the School responded by providing a revised fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Rounds petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0084, 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

Brian Lynch SPR26/0084 Page 3 January 23, 2026 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 Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Rounds states that “[t]his supplemental appeal addresses the proportionality and methodology of the revised fee estimate and is intended to continue the cooperative narrowing process encouraged in the Supervisor’s prior determination.” He further explains that “I remain willing to continue working in good faith to refine the request further, provided such refinement results in a materially reasonable path to access.” The School’s January 8th Response In its January 8, 2026 response, the School states the following: This request is an amendment to your November 26, 2025 request, which the District responded to on December 10, 2025 and you appealed to the Supervisor of Records. See SPR25/3644. In the Supervisor’s decision, the parties were encouraged to communicate directly in order to facilitate more affordable and efficient production of records. Accordingly, the District provides the following suggested parameters and search methods. First, the individual search terms provided are very broad and if individually searched for without further limitation will result in an exorbitant amount of potentially responsive emails. The District proposes to limit the search to communications to/from the listed “Custodians” which contain any of the following terms: [a list of specified names.] The District believes that using these terms will then encompass any of the other provided search terms that relate to you or your children. If this is not consistent with the intent of your request, please let us know. Second, given the nature of the information requested, specifically emails and communications which relate to students, the District is unable to conduct an “automated or batched searches rather than manual review,” as requested. This is because, once the District has compiled potentially responsive records through the use of the search terms, it will need to review each email for any exemptions pursuant to the Public Records Law. As previously stated, responsive records

Brian Lynch SPR26/0084 Page 4 January 23, 2026 relating to specifically named students likely would be wholly exempt from disclosure or subject to redaction under Section 7(26)(a), the statutory exemption, based on the District’s obligation to maintain the confidentiality of personally identifying student information, beyond directory information, under federal and state law and regulations (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 99; 603 CMR 23.00). Education records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). Education records are records, no matter their form or location, which directly relate to a student and are maintained by an educational agency or institute. See Champa v. Weston Public Schools, 473 Mass. 86, 91-92. Personally identifiable student information includes a student’s name, name of the student’s parents or other family members, address of the student or student’s family, or any other information that alone or in combination is linked or linkable to a specific student. See 34 C.F.R 99. Here, you are seeking communications which specifically reference your children, and therefore the likelihood of having to withhold or record responsive communications is high. Additionally, where you seek communications including District Legal Counsel, as you have noted privileged legal communications will need to be removed from the search results. Additionally, the School provides a total fee estimate of $3,675 for the current request, and provides the following information in support of its fees: Here, because the District is within a community with a population of more than 20,000 people, it will not include the first two hours in its fee petition. The District will charge $25 per hour to search for, compile, segregate, redact and produce the requested records based on the aforementioned Exemption (a), the statutory exemption. That rate is justified given that the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task has an effective hourly rate that exceeds $25 per hour. The District estimates that it will take approximately 149 hours to search for, compile, segregate, and redact records pursuant to FERPA and the attorney-client privilege in response to your request. This conservative calculation does not include a search or review for the other internal notes and documents requested, as the District believes that this digital search would likely contain the bulk of the requested records. This search resulted in 8994 emails. The District estimates that it will take approximately 1 minute to review each potentially responsive email. This equals approximately 149 hours to search through approximately 8994 emails. The fee estimate to produce the records sought in the request is therefore $3,675 (i.e. ((149– 2 Hours) X $25)). The actual fee to produce these records may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary search and review process. Where Mr. Rounds and the School have both shown a willingness to further narrow the scope of the request, this office encourages Mr. Rounds and the School to continue to

Brian Lynch SPR26/0084 Page 5 January 23, 2026 communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Rounds may consider further narrowing the scope of his request 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). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Rounds and the School communicate further as described above, Mr. Rounds may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Rounds