Dias, Collin v. Southcoast Massachusetts Educational Collaborative (SPR 20260476)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 25, 2026 SPR26/0476 Christopher Haraden Records Access Officer Southeastern Massachusetts Educational Collaborative 25 Russells Mills Road Dartmouth, MA 02748 Dear Mr. Haraden: I have received the petition of Colin Dias appealing the response of the Southeastern Massachusetts Educational Collaborative (Collaborative/SMEC) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On January 14, 2026, Mr. Dias requested: 1. [A]ll text messages and emails between [a named individual] and Fall River Public Schools (“FRPS”) Superintendent [a second named individual]. 2. All text messages and emails between [a named individual] and any FRPS employee or Fall River School Committee Member. The Collaborative responded on January 21, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Collaborative’s response, and objecting to the fees, Mr. Dias petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/0476, 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 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

Christopher Haraden SPR26/0476 Page 2 February 25, 2026 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). 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. Dias contends that he “should not be charged for any redaction time, and the charge for redaction time and the time to search for records is overpriced and overestimated.” He goes on to argue that “[a]s proof, SMEC admitted there were 2368 emails responsive to my request, so that is proof SMEC searched for and found the emails.” Upon review of the appeal petition, it appears Mr. Dias objects only to the fee estimate provided for Item 2 of the request, and not to the records he received responsive to Item 1. The Collaborative’s January 21st Response In its January 21, 2026 response, the Collaborative provided records responsive to Item 1 of the request, and provided a total fee estimate of $7,893.33 for records responsive to Item 2. In support of its fee estimate, the Collaborative provided the following information: With regard to Item 2, a search of the Collaborative’s email system resulted in

Christopher Haraden SPR26/0476 Page 3 February 25, 2026 2,368 emails exchanged since 2008 responsive to your request. While it is the Collaborative’s intent to comply with your request, given the number of documents that would need to be reviewed, copied, and redacted, and the amount of staff time necessary to respond to the request, the cost would exceed $10. Therefore, in accordance with 950 CMR 32.06(2), I am providing you with the following estimate as to the anticipated fees for compliance with your request. In accordance with M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 and 950 CMR 32.02, you will be charged a prorated fee of$25 per hour for search and segregation time associated this request as the documentation may contain student record information, as well as for redaction time for any redaction required by law. This represents the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee capable of performing this task. To reach an estimate, the 2,368 emails as an average of two (2) pages per email, resulting in 4,736 pages for review. The Collaborative estimates your request requires 2 minutes per page for search and segregation time resulting in 158 hours of search and segregation time at a total cost of $3,946.67. The Collaborative estimates your request requires 2 minutes per page for redaction time resulting in 158 hours of redaction time at a total cost of $3,946.67. Based on the estimated fees contained in the paragraph above, the total estimated charge you will be assessed for copies of the records which you requested is $7,893.33. Reasonable Description of the 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. 1784CV02087, 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 judgements 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). This office encourages Mr. Dias and the Collaborative to communicate directly in order

Christopher Haraden SPR26/0476 Page 4 February 25, 2026 to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Dias may consider narrowing the scope of his request, for example by providing date ranges and search terms, to enable the Collaborative to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The Collaborative 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. Dias and the Collaborative communicate further as described above, Mr. Dias may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Colin Dias