Tobin, Ben v. Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (SPR 20260454)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 19, 2026 SPR26/0454 Celeste Andrade Records Access Officer Dudley-Charlton Regional School District 68 Dudley Oxford Road Dudley, MA 01571 Dear Ms. Andrade: I have received the petition of Ben Tobin appealing the response of the Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Between January 14, 2026 and January 25, 2026, Mr. Tobin submitted nine requests for public records: [1] … the entry and exit criteria for speech services referenced by [an identified individual]. [2] … any emails, texts, and other communication from [an identified individual] from the period of 1/5/2026 to 1/12/2026 that include the key term dysarthria. I would also like any communication sent between her and [identified individuals] related to the 1/13/2026 meeting for [an identified individual] in the days leading up to the meeting. [3] … any communication (including but not limited to emails) from [an identified individual] from 1/5/2026 to 1/12/2026 that have to do with paraprofessionals being in the classroom and also communication around servicing students with disabilities in the classroom. [4] … any communication (including but not limited to emails) from [an identified individual] from 1/5/2026 to 1/12/2026 related in any way to all fo [sic] the … cases[.] [5] … a copy of the district’s childfind data for this year and last year[.] [6] … the login data from the last three … IEP meetings from Zoom, especially 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

Celeste Andrade SPR26/0454 Page 2 February 19, 2026 the information related to who logged into the meetings. Not the attendance sheets for the IEP meeting but the attendance records for the meetings from Zoom itself. There should be an auto generated report that comes with each meeting. [7] … [an identified individual’s] emails for the week of 1/18 to 1/24 related to the key phrases writing, think SRSD, spelling, anything to do with the … cases, and rejected. I would also like to request a copy of her think SRSD certificate. [8] … [an identified individual’s] emails and text messages for the week of 1/18 to 1/24 related to the key phrases writing, think SRSD, spelling, anything at all having to do with the … cases, paraprofessional, and rejected. [9] … a copy of the report [an identified individual] presented at school committee meeting from 1/14/2026 as seen in this screenshot from the vimeo link[.] The School responded on January 29, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Tobin petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0454, was opened as a result. 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 Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Tobin contends, “I didn’t get a list of documents to see where this fee estimate is coming from so I would like to appeal. They also lumped all my requests into

Celeste Andrade SPR26/0454 Page 3 February 19, 2026 one even though they are separate requests from different [sic].” The School’s January 29th Fee Estimate In its January 29, 2026 response, the School provided a total fee estimate of $200 and provides the following explanation: … In particular, your requests for communications “related to the 1/13/2026 meeting” for a student, “related to” key phrases, “anything to do with” particular cases, “that have to do with paraprofessionals being in the classroom”, “around servicing students with disabilities in the classroom”, and “related in any way to all” of a student’s cases do not contain the specificity required under the Public Records Law. It is also unclear what “childfind data” you are seeking. The District has not yet completed the search for, compilation, segregation, redaction, or reproduction of all of the potentially responsive records because due to the breadth of your requests, the process for completing this response would take a substantial amount of time at a significant cost to the District. … Potential Exemptions: Because your request specifically seeks records from a public school relating to special education and a specific student, the search is likely to return many emails about individual students. 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), which exempts all information specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute, 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. In addition, records that allow for indirect identification of a student in relation to their education records are also exempt from disclosure, including without limitation students who are identifiable based on other information in your possession. … Your requests seek communications involving District staff and/or officials who are likely to have communicated with the District’s 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 a privileged attorney-client communication, such information would be protected from disclosure under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a). … Communications between employee organizations and their members may be present on the District’s email servers and returned in a broad search pursuant to what you have requested. Any such communications may be deemed not public records and so exempt from disclosure under M.G.L. c.150E, §5A and M.G.L.

Celeste Andrade SPR26/0454 Page 4 February 19, 2026 c.4, §7(26)(a). … Without limitation, private information in responsive records is likely to include information about individual students as well as personal email addresses and other contact information contained in any communications. Personal contact information must be redacted as exempt pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a), which exempts from public disclosure records which are specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute, and M.G.L. c.66, §10B and M.G.L. c.150E, §5A(d), which provide that a public employee’s home/personal addresses, email address, and telephone numbers and date of birth are not public records, as well as pursuant to M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(c). … … Fee Estimate: … Given the broad nature of these records, we anticipate effectively all of the segregation and redaction process will be for information that is covered by Exemption (a) and is required by law; however, to the extent there are any segregation/redactions not required by law, the District will not charge for the related segregation/redaction time. … In the most-recent decennial U.S. Census, the member towns of the District, Dudley and Charlton, had a total population exceeding 20,000, and as a result the District may charge you for all time involved in responding to your request after two (2) hours. Given the nature and complexity of the exemptions, privileges, and confidentiality requirements cited above, and the wide-ranging and private nature of the related information, the lowest paid employee of the District who could continue the search for, compilation, review, segregation, redaction, and reproduction of records and make judgments as to which information is public and which information is exempt and must be redacted would be a member of District’s central office staff and/or IT department who are all 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. The District’s response to your request will require the appropriate District official/staff search for records to which they may have access based upon the particular request, save all records located to a single file, manually review each record to determine whether it is in fact responsive, redact any exempt information with the labeling and explanation required by law, save these documents to another file for production to you, and then convert and reproduce them in a format compliant with applicable law. Although this will be a fluid process and may vary for each particular record, it will essentially be broken down into a search/compilation step, a segregation/redaction step, and a reproduction step, because the District would search/compile at the same time and segregate/redact at the same time. We estimate the time will be comprised on

Celeste Andrade SPR26/0454 Page 5 February 19, 2026 average of approximately 20% search and compilation time, 65% segregation time, 10% redaction time, and 5% reproduction time for each record. Based on the District’s experience responding to public records requests and the process described in this letter, and considering the applicable exemptions, the time needed for redaction, and the number of responsive records already located (which we expect will vary in page length but will typically include many pages), we estimate that it will take an additional ten (10) hours of total employee time to fully search for, compile, review, segregate, redact, and reproduce each record in accordance with applicable law. As such, the District’s good faith fee estimate is $200.00 (10 total hours, less 2 hours of free time = 8 hours x $25.00/hour). In addition, although the District’s records are generally maintained in electronic format, your request seeks a wide variety of records, including paper records, and some records responsive to your request may not be maintained electronically. To the extent any records must be copied or printed for redaction or otherwise in order to respond to your request, there may be additional associated fees of $0.05 per page pursuant to M.G.L. c.66, §10(d)(i) and 950 CMR 32.07(2)(e). … Reasonable Description of Records Sought Please be aware, the Public Records Law states that a records access officer must furnish a copy of any public record “provided that the request reasonably describes the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). In a recent case, the Superior Court found that under the Public Records Law “[t]he reasonable description requirement contemplates that a requesting party will identify documents or categories of documents with sufficient particularity that government employees will be able to understand exactly what they are looking for, and then make a prompt production.” See Jaideep Chawla v. Dept of Revenue, Suffolk. Sup. No. l 784CV02087, at 2 (January 23, 2019). The court further indicated “[r]equests for documents that are articulated with very broad language that calls upon non-lawyer administrative personnel to interpret the scope of what is sought, and then make fine judgments about what documents are and are not sufficiently ‘related’ to the category of materials requested, will not satisfy this statutory standard.” As such, requests that seek “all records relating to…,” “all records concerning…,” or “all records regarding…” are not sufficiently particular as to satisfy the statutory standard of a request that “reasonably described the public record sought.” See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a)(i). Consistent with the decision in Chawla, I find that the language, “related to…[,]” “that have to do with…[,]” “anything to do with…[,]” “communication around…[,]” and “related in any way to all…[,]” does not satisfy the statutory standard for a request that reasonably describes the public record sought. See Chawla, at 2. Mr. Tobin may wish to provide clarification regarding the specific records he is seeking. Once Mr. Tobin has provided the needed clarification, the School must provide a response within 10 business days.

Celeste Andrade SPR26/0454 Page 6 February 19, 2026 This office encourages Mr. Tobin and the School to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. 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 Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Tobin is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ben Tobin