Fallon, Anthony v. Canton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20260874)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 17, 2026 SPR26/0874 Brian Lynch Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Canton Public Schools 960 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Lynch: On March 11, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Canton Public Schools (School) seeking 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, Anthony Fallon. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On February 26, 2026, Mr. Fallon requested the following: [1] All complaints, concerns, reports, allegations, or communications (formal or informal), whether written or oral and later memorialized, received by Canton Public Schools that reference or relate to [identified individual][;] [2] All communications (including emails, text messages, memoranda, letters, notes, drafts, or other correspondence) to, from, or among Canton Public Schools employees, administrators, School Committee members, parents, students, or third parties that reference or relate to [identified individuals and search terms] [3] All internal records reflecting the decision-making process regarding … employment status[;] [4] All records of communications with law enforcement concerning …, including emails, memoranda, notes, summaries of conversations, or meeting records[;] [5] All policies, handbook, regulations, or guidelines in effect during the request period that govern [identified search terms][.] 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

Brian Lynch SPR26/0874 Page 2 March 17, 2026 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. 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).

Brian Lynch SPR26/0874 Page 3 March 17, 2026 Current Petition In its petition, the School requests permission “to charge a fee to segregate and redact records sought pursuant to Exemption (c) under the Public Records Law. In support of its petition, the School provides the following information: …the District is seeking approval from the Supervisor to assess a fee for time spent making redactions pursuant to Exemption (c) of the public records law. Specifically, responsive documents and communications relating to a specifically named, terminated employee are very likely to contain personnel information, as well as information the release of which could constitute an invasion of personal privacy for District employees. Wakefield Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm., 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000) (examples of personnel information include “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee.”); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Dep’t of Agric. Res., 477 Mass. 208, 292 (2017) (weighing privacy interests versus public interest by assessing “(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”). In addition to relating directly to a specifically named employee’s termination, and therefore constituting personnel information, the District believes that any complaints made against an employee, substantiated or unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, and internal reviews of such complaints or alleged misconduct, if not already public, would be considered highly personal, the release of which would result in personal embarrassment to an individual of normal sensibilities. 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). 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. I encourage the parties to communicate further to enable the School to provide records in an efficient and affordable manner. Please note, Mr. Fallon 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).

Brian Lynch SPR26/0874 Page 4 March 17, 2026 Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Anthony Fallon