Corbett, Benjamin v. Northbridge, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260745)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 11, 2026 SPR26/0745 George G. Spier Records Access Officer Northbridge Public Schools 87 Linwood Avenue Northbridge, MA 01588 Dear Mr. Spier: March 4, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Northbridge Public Schools (School/District) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a public records request. 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, Benjamin Corbett. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 2, 2026, Mr. Corbett requested the following: [1] Capital Project Records: All ledgers, invoices, and funding sources for capital projects initiated or completed between January 2024 and February 2026[;] [2] Building Plans & Engineering Reports: Current structural engineering reports and architectural plans for the Middle School Auditorium and all the Northbridge Elementary School[;] [3] Procurement & Bidding Logs: All records of “three-quote” bids or public bidding for electrical, mechanical, and structural repairs. This includes any contract awarded to unlicensed individuals or entities[;] [4] Grant Funding Documentation: All records regarding the allocation of state or federal grants intended for facility safety or infrastructure improvements. 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 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

George G. Spier SPR26/0745 Page 2 March 11, 2026 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. 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).

George G. Spier SPR26/0745 Page 3 March 11, 2026 Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the School requests permission “to assess fees for the records requested in this matter.” In support of its petition, the School provides the following information: The District possesses records responsive to the request. However, the requested records, must be redacted where many of the responsive documents will meet the inclusive, not exhaustive, exemptions set forth in G.L. c. 4, § 7(26) and below. Exemption (c) The requested documents pertain to personnel information regarding a former employee. In particular, the documents contain information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee” that “includes, at a minimum, employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.” See Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. School Committee, 43 l Mass 792, 798 (2000). The reason for which a requestor seeks access to or a copy of a public record does not afford any greater right of access to the requested information than other persons in the general public. The Public Records Law does not distinguish between requestors. Access to a record pursuant to the Public Records Law rests on the content of the record and not the circumstances of the requestor. See Bougas v. Chief of Police of Lexington, 3 71 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). As such, personnel records must be redacted regardless of the requestor’s status. Exemption (n) The requested documents, particularly those concerning engineering reports and architectural plans, contain records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, and other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cyber security or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the District’s reasonable judgment, are likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security. In light of the School’s petition, I find that 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 contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Fees in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the School requests, “approval to charge an hourly rate of $75 per hour.” In support of its request, the School provides the following information concerning anticipated

George G. Spier SPR26/0745 Page 4 March 11, 2026 redactions: The redaction of the requested documents requires both knowledge in law and knowledge of the facts at issue. Accordingly, this redaction cannot be performed by a District employee; rather, it must be completed by legal counsel for the District as it involves an ongoing legal matter. In particular, the records requested must be reviewed and redacted by an individual who is knowledgeable, well- versed and trained in case law responsive to Exemptions (c) and (n) and specifically, how the Supervisor of Public Records and courts have interpreted the type of information that may be redacted and applying those decisions to the requested record. The hourly rate associated with the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to perform this task is $265 per hour. The District estimates that because of the voluminous amount of information exempt under G.L. c. 4, §7(26) contained within the requested information, it will take an average of one minute to review and redact each page. This number is based on the need to carefully read each page, make the necessary determinations regarding whether the record contains exempt information, redact any confidential information contained in the records if found, and the possibility that other individuals may need to be consulted throughout this process. I find the School has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information as described above, the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. However, I find the School has not met its burden to explain how the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25 per hour. Please note, Mr. Corbett 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: Benjamin Corbett