Park, Woo v. Salem, City of - Public Schools (SPR 20260271)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 3, 2026 SPR26/0271 Shirley Dorai Executive Administrative Assistant Salem Public Schools 29 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Dorai: On January 27, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of Salem Public Schools (School/District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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, Woo Park, of The Data Branch. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On January 13, 2026, Woo Park made the following request: …The Data Branch is hereby submitting a public records request to your K-12 public school district for purchasing and expenditure data. Specifically, we request a spreadsheet or equivalent file containing all purchases or contracts issued between January 1, 2023, and the present… We are requesting confirmation of whether your district currently contracts with any of the following vendors, and if so, a copy of the signed contract or agreement: ITSM (IT Service Management) Providers:  One to One Plus  Follett (Destiny / MasterLibrary)  Freshworks / Freshdesk  K-12 Insight  ServiceNow  Frontline  Hayes  Zendesk  Asset Tiger 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

Shirley Dorai SPR26/0271 Page 2 February 3, 2026  Asset Panda  Spiceworks CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System) Providers:  FMX  Brightly / SchoolDude  MasterLibrary  Facilitron  Operations Hero  MaintainX For each vendor category, please respond as follows:  If you currently contract with any listed vendor, please provide the signed contract or agreement  If you do not contract with any listed vendor but use a different ITSM or CMMS provider, please confirm the name of your current provider  If you do not use any ITSM or CMMS provider, please confirm this in your response… Petitions for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its

Shirley Dorai SPR26/0271 Page 3 February 3, 2026 obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) shall provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Responsive Records In its petition, the School requests an extension of 25 business days and provides the following information in support of its request: The District replied to this request in a timely fashion… Therefore, District hereby petitions for an extension of time to respond to that portion of the request that seeks purchase orders given that the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure is significant. The District will be unable to produce the records during normal business hours of operation without an extension due to the significant amount of records sought. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 66, section 10(c), the District requests an additional 25 business days… I find that in light of the need to collect, segregate, and examine the records and the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure, in conjunction with the capacity of the School to produce the request without the extension, the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iv). The School is granted an extension of 25 business days. 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.

Shirley Dorai SPR26/0271 Page 4 February 3, 2026 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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): …[T]hese purchase orders require redactions in accordance with the exemption set forth at G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c)… In accordance with the exemption, the District needs to review and redact the purchase orders to the extent they contain information concerning employees that relates to performance or complaints, evaluations of employees, leaves of absences, and discipline of employees. And, the records may contain information subject to redaction under Exemption O, such as the home address, personal email address, or home phone number of government employees. G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(o). 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

Shirley Dorai SPR26/0271 Page 5 February 3, 2026 contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. 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 the School has established good cause for a time extension of 25 business days as described above. Additionally, 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 the parties 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, Woo Park 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: Woo Park