Flaherty, Rachel v. North Middlesex Regional School District (SPR 20261286)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 9, 2026 SPR26/1286 Robin Eibye Records Access Officer North Middlesex Regional School District 66 Brookline Street Townsend, MA 01469 Dear Ms. Eibye: On April 8, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the North Middlesex Regional School District (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 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, I understand that the District furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor, Rachel Flaherty. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 26, 2026, Ms. Flaherty requested: [1] All email communications, internal memoranda, and written notes generated or received by school district employees (including but not limited to [14 identified individuals]) from Sept 2023 to the present, that contain the following [identified] search terms… [2] Minutes or notes from any administrative or “SST” (Student Support Team) meetings where my children or family were discussed in relation to filing reports with state agencies. 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 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

Robin Eibye SPR26/1286 Page 2 April 9, 2026 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). Current Petition to Assess Fees In its petition, the District seeks to assess fees for segregation and redaction, and explains the following in support of its request: …the requested records must be redacted where many of the responsive documents will meet the below inclusive, not exhaustive, exemptions set forth in G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)[:]

Robin Eibye SPR26/1286 Page 3 April 9, 2026  Exemption (a) – The request directly implicates District students, whose identities and contact information are specifically and by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute as student record/education record information under 603 CMR 23.00 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.  Exemption (c) – The requested documents contain materials or data relating to specifically named individuals, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.  Exemption (o) – The requested documents may contain the home and/or personal email address and/or home telephone numbers of District employees. In light of the District’s petition, I find the District 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 District may assess a fee for the segregation and redaction of such exempt material. Fee in Excess of $25.00 per Hour In its petition, the District also argues: …the District seeks to assess higher fees for time spent redacting records that fall within statutory exemptions beyond Exemption (a) of G.L. c. 4, §7(26) given the likelihood that the aforementioned categories of information need to be redacted. Specifically, the District seeks approval to charge an hourly rate of $75 per hour spent redacting, an amount typically approved by your office in response to fee petitions of this nature. Any time spent searching for, compiling, and segregating documents would be charged at the rate of $25 an hour. 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. 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 (a), (c), (o) and (p) 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 $270 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,

Robin Eibye SPR26/1286 Page 4 April 9, 2026 and the possibility that other individuals may need to be consulted throughout this process. The purpose of assessing fees is to simply offset the costs that will be charged to the District in responding to this request and ensure that the District can properly redact information as required by G.L. c. 4, §7(26). Based on its petition, I find the District has met its burden to explain how, given the nature of the responsive records, the request could not prudently be completed without assessing a fee in excess of $25.00 per hour. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Consequently, I find the District may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for the work of legal counsel as described above. Conclusion Accordingly, to the extent the responsive records contain the exempt information described above, the District may assess a fee for segregation and redaction. Further, as described above, the District may assess a fee limited to $75.00 per hour for the work of legal counsel. This office encourages Ms. Flaherty and the District to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification to 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 records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any subsequent fee estimate from the District must be made in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii) and G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Flaherty 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: Rachel Flaherty