Belmont, Math Parents v. Belmont, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260455)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 20, 2026 SPR26/0455 Artemis Tingos Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Belmont Public Schools 644 Pleasant Street Belmont, MA 02478 Dear Ms. Tingos: I have received the petition of Belmont Math Parents (requestor) appealing the response of Belmont 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 April 2, 2025, the requestor sought the following: All emails, texts and messages, whether on Belmont-owned or private devices or apps, between and amongst any of the following [six identified individuals], from March 1, 2025 to the present, regarding Challenger Geometry, math placement, math pathways, MDTP, and/or math assessment, placement and/or readiness tests. It is my understanding the School assigned this request reference number 25-401. Following correspondence between the parties, the requestor modified the request on September 15, 2025, as follows: All emails, texts and messages between [two identified individuals] from March 1, 2025 to April 1, 2025 regarding Challenger Geometry, math placement, MDTP. It is my understanding the School assigned the modified request reference number 25- 1254. Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3253 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 17, 2025). In my November 17th determination, I ordered the School to explain with specificity how its redactions under Exemptions (c) and (l) of the Public Records Law apply to the responsive records it produced. Regarding the remaining records, I 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

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0455 Page 2 February 20, 2026 ordered the School to revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $102.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). Additionally, I ordered the School to clarify whether it possesses additional records that the requestor claimed were missing from the School’s production and were unmentioned in the fee estimate. The School responded on December 1, 2025. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0455, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 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).

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0455 Page 3 February 20, 2026 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 School’s December 1st Response In its December 1, 2025 response, the School provided further clarifications of its redactions under Exemptions (c) and (l), as well as additional explanation of its fee estimate. Current Appeal In the appeal petition, the requestor argues that the School’s claims under Exemptions (c) and (l) are still inadequate. The requestor also argues that fee estimate remains deficient and that the School failed to clarify whether it possesses additional records. Exemption (c) Exemption (c) permits the withholding of: personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Second Clause – Privacy Analysis under the second clause of Exemption (c) is subjective in nature and requires a balancing of the public’s right to know against the relevant privacy interests at stake. Torres v. Att’y Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984); Att’y Gen. v. Assistant Comm’r of Real Prop. Dep’t, 380 Mass. 623, 625 (1980). Therefore, determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. This clause does not protect all data relating to specifically named individuals. Rather, there are factors to consider when assessing the weight of the privacy interest at stake: (1) whether disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities; (2) whether the materials sought contain intimate details of a highly personal nature; and (3) whether the same information is available from other sources. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 280, 292 (2017). The types of personal information which the second clause of this exemption is designed to protect includes: marital status, paternity, substance abuse, government assistance, family disputes and reputation. Id. at 292 n.13; see also Doe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 427 (1988) (holding that a motor vehicle licensee has a privacy interest in disclosure of his social security number).

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0455 Page 4 February 20, 2026 This clause requires a balancing test which provides that where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private interest in preventing disclosure must yield. PETA, 477 Mass. at 291. The public has a recognized interest in knowing whether public servants are carrying out their duties in a law-abiding and efficient manner. Id. at 292. Regarding the School’s redactions under Exemption (c), the School stated, “Exemption C was cited and noted on documents for “’unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ In some cases for minor student information and others for personal vendor information (personal email, phone number, last name).” The School additionally noted that it redacted “student identifiers” from certain attachments and links within the responsive records. While some of the redacted information may be properly withheld under the privacy clause of Exemption (c), such as personal email addresses, it remains unclear how all of the School’s redactions fall under Exemption (c). In this case, the School has not established how the withheld student information and additional personal vendor information constitutes intimate details of a highly personal nature, nor how disclosure would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. Further, it is uncertain whether any of this information is available from other sources. PETA, 477 Mass. at 292. The School must also provide information with respect to the balancing test which examines whether the public interest in obtaining the requested information outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy. The School must clarify these matters. Exemption (l) Exemption (l) permits the withholding of records that are: questions and answers, scoring keys and sheets and other materials used to develop, administer or score a test, examination or assessment instrument; provided, however, that such materials are intended to be used for another test, examination or assessment instrument G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(l). There are no authoritative Massachusetts decisions interpreting Exemption (l). The general purpose of Exemption (l) is to prevent individuals from gaining an unfair advantage by accessing test questions and test answers prior to the administration of an examination. As long as the same materials are used to administer subsequent examinations, the custodian of records may continue to withhold the materials pursuant to Exemption (l). Regarding the School’s redactions under Exemption (l), the School stated, “Exemption L was cited for specific test information: how the test works, sample tests, login passcode information. All which are covered under the exemption and the license agreement with the vendor to protect copyrights and proprietary rights.”

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0455 Page 5 February 20, 2026 Although the information redacted under Exemption (l) may constitute “materials used to develop, administer or score a test, examination or assessment,” the School has not demonstrated that the withheld information is “intended to be used for another test, examination or assessment instrument,” as required under Exemption (l). The School must clarify this matter. The School’s Fee Estimate On September 25, 202, the School provided a fee estimate $102.00 to produce additional responsive records. In support of its fee estimate, the School initially provided the following information: In addition to the 2 hours that were performed to research gather and release the documents on September 18 and 23, 2025, please see the invoice for the request for additional documents… If collecting, preparing, and redacting the requested documents will take more than two (2) hours, the Town may charge for the wages of the lowest-paid employee who can perform the research/copying or redacting work, up to $25 per hour. The first two (2) hours of labor are free – already completed 2+ hours of work… There are 15 iterations of the Q & A document There are 27 iterations of the BPS Pathways document There are 7 iterations of the Guidelines document Each iteration will take 5 minutes to search/view, copy or download and then prepare for distribution. 15+27+7= 49 iterations x 5/min each = 245 minutes or 4.08hrs Number of hours 4.08 x $25 (maximum $25 per hour) = $102.00… [P]erforming the following task: searching, segregating Redacting from the Records… TOTAL good faith estimated fee for fulfillment of your Public Records Request is $102.00 * plus 7 other documents that were noted with unknown iterations… In its December 1, 2025 response, the School further explained its fee estimate as follows: The district had completed 2 hours of work and released the appropriate documents for request 25-1254. The provided emails included working links to documents which are accessible to the requestor. Searching for previous iterations of a document would constitute work beyond the allotted free two hours… The requester asked for 16 additional documents that were linked in the released emails. Many of the documents are Google Docs and the specified iterations

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0455 Page 6 February 20, 2026 would need to be found, extracted, converted into a .pdf, placed on the desktop and then uploaded into the Next Request system. As the requester specified themselves in their October 30, 2025, email to you, “Because the town’s system requires us to access each file individually, download it, and then email it to you, it is a time-consuming process.” The same applies to the process the ROA must go through in order to reply to email search requests and upload the emails into the NextRequest system for release to the requestor. The maximum fee of $25 per hour is the lowest rate for an employee capable of performing the tasks involved in producing the records. Provided estimates have included two hours free work. The requestor has submitted multiple records requests for email searches over the last several years. It seems the requestor is unwilling to pay for any work that is required for this time-consuming process, as seven requests in the last two years have been closed due to non-payment of an invoice. Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k). Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Although the School maintains that it would take 4.08 hours to produce and redact the remaining responsive records, it remains unclear why the School requires this much time. Particularly, it is unclear why the School requires five minutes per document for review. While the School may charge for time spent “searching, segregating, [and/or] redacting” the records, it remains unclear whether this estimate includes time spent to “view, copy or download and then prepare for distribution.” As such, the School must clarify how it may assess a fee for these tasks under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv) (requiring the amount of the fee be reasonable).

Artemis Tingos SPR26/0455 Page 7 February 20, 2026 Further, where the School indicates that it intends to redact the responsive records, it must clarify if the redactions are required by law, and state the applicable statutes, if any. Pursuant to 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 under 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 School must clarify this matter. Additionally, in light of the requestor’s continued claim that the fee estimate includes unrequested records and seeks to “charge for 49 ‘iterations’ of records the requester did not seek,” the School must clarify whether its fee estimate pertains to the referenced records that the requestor claims are still outstanding. For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $102.00 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages the parties to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. The requestor may wish to narrow 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide the requestor 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. The requestor may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Belmont Math Parents