Rounds, Joseph v. Canton, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261006)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 2, 2026 SPR26/1006 Brian Lynch Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations Canton Public Schools 960 Washington Street Canton, MA 02021 Dear Mr. Lynch: I have received the petition of Joseph Rounds appealing the response of the Canton Public Schools (School/District) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 2, 2026, Mr. Rounds requested the following: 1. Defined Timeframe Records created between: September 1, 2023 and the present 2. Limited Custodians Emails and documents involving only the following District roles: - Superintendent - Assistant Superintendent - Principals and Assistant Principals - Guidance Counselors - Records Access Officer - District Legal Counsel (communications regarding [identified individuals], excluding attorney-client privileged legal advice) 3. Limited Subject Matter Records containing any of the following specific terms, whether in the body, subject line, or attachments: [a list of specified search terms] 4. Categories of Records Requested - Internal emails discussing concerns, complaints, or incidents involving [identified individuals] - Internal summaries or notes prepared for administrators - Communications related to mandated reporting decisions - Meeting notes or internal discussions regarding parent communication 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 SPR26/1006 Page 2 April 2, 2026 decisions - Draft emails or internal guidance regarding communication with me 5. Additional Narrowing To further reduce volume: - This request excludes emails sent to or from Joseph E. Rounds. - This request seeks administrative and procedural records only, and does not request student academic, disciplinary, or evaluation records. Previous Petition This request was the subject of a previous petition from the School. See SPR26/0908 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 20, 2026). In my March 20th determination, I found that the School may assess a fee for segregation and redaction of the responsive records. Concurrent with its fee petition, the School provided Mr. Rounds with a fee estimate on March 13, 2026. Objecting to the fees, Mr. Rounds petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1006, was opened as a result. Status of the Requestor Please note that 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, 371 Mass. 59, 64 (1976). Accordingly, Mr. Rounds’ status will play no role in a determination as to whether the records should be disclosed or redacted under the Public Records Law. 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

Brian Lynch SPR26/1006 Page 3 April 2, 2026 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. Rounds argues the following: Since the initial request in November 2025, I have repeatedly and substantially narrowed the scope of my request in direct response to guidance from both the District and the Supervisor. ... Each of these steps was taken specifically to reduce burden and facilitate a reasonable production. . . . The District is uniquely positioned to understand how its own email systems are structured and how responsive records could be efficiently isolated. However, rather than leveraging that knowledge to facilitate production, it has relied on repeated recalculation of the same broad search results. . . . The District’s estimate continues to rely on a purely mechanical assumption that each of the approximately 6,798 emails requires one minute of review time. . . . The cumulative effect of the District’s approach is that each good-faith narrowing effort results in only marginal reductions in estimated burden, while the underlying methodology remains unchanged. . . . I remain willing to continue refining the request in good faith. However, meaningful progress requires reciprocal cooperation and transparency from the District regarding how its records are structured and how responsive records can be efficiently identified. The School’s March 13th Fee Estimate In its March 13, 2026 response, the School provides a total fee estimate of $2,783, and gives the following information in support of its fee estimate: Here, because the District is within a community with a population of more than 20,000 people, it will not include the first two hours in its fee petition. The District will charge $25 per hour to search for, compile, segregate, redact and produce the requested records based on the aforementioned Exemption (a), the statutory exemption. That rate is justified given that the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task has an effective hourly rate that exceeds $25 per hour. The District estimates that it will take approximately 113 hours to search for, compile, segregate, and redact records pursuant to FERPA, the attorney-client privilege, and the privacy exemption, in response to your request. This

Brian Lynch SPR26/1006 Page 4 April 2, 2026 conservative calculation does not include a search or review for the other internal notes and documents requested, as the District believes that this digital search would likely contain the bulk of the requested records. This search resulted in 6,798 emails. The District estimates that it will take approximately 1 minute to review each potentially responsive email. This equals approximately 113 hours. The fee estimate to produce the records sought in the request is therefore $2,783 (i.e. ((113 Hours – 2 Hours) X $25)). The actual fee to produce these records may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary search and review process. Should you wish to further narrow or revise the scope of this request, for example, by narrowing the timeframe, the District would recalculate a good faith fee estimate accordingly. Appropriate Definitions, Parameters, and Time Frames In Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. [The agencies], in turn, have a right not to be inundated with drain-the-ocean records requests, provided they fulfill the basic expectations of the [Public Records Law] in a fair and transparent manner. See Friedman v. Div. of Admin. Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, Suffolk Sup. No. 2284CV02061-C, at 3 (February 14, 2023). The Court in Friedman noted, “the extraordinary volume of records called for in this case has compelled the Defendants to produce responsive materials in a ‘rolling’ fashion, rather than in accordance with deadlines contemplated by the [Public Records Law].” Id. at 1. The Court stated that: [T]he parties shall be expected to agree upon, to the greatest extent possible, the following: (a) appropriate definitions, time frames, and parameters regarding substance and scope for the identification of requested documents; (b) appropriate search terms to be used for the retrieval of responsive documents; (c) a reasonable time frame for the production of requested documents, if the statute’s presumptive deadlines are not realistic; (d) appropriate rules to govern the withholding of documents falling within the scope of a statutory privilege or privacy doctrine; and (e) an appropriate methodology for computing the reasonable fees that may be charged for responsive document production. Id. at 2.

Brian Lynch SPR26/1006 Page 5 April 2, 2026 In this case, where both Mr. Rounds and the School have shown a willingness to further narrow the scope of the request, this office encourages Mr. Rounds and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Rounds may consider further narrowing the scope of his request to enable the School to provide the records more efficiently and affordably. The School 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. Rounds and the School communicate further as described above, Mr. Rounds may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Joseph Rounds