Transparency, Commonwealth v. Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (SPR 20261371)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 24, 2026 SPR26/1371 Celeste Andrade Records Access Officer Dudley-Charlton Regional School District 68 Dudley-Oxford Road Dudley, MA 01571 Dear Ms. Andrade: I have received the petition of Open Commonwealth (requestor) appealing the response of the Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 4, 2026, the requestor sought: All communications from January 1, 2026, through January 15, 2026, where:  The communication(s) originated from/were authored by [an identified individual] and;  The communications included any of the following words/terms/phrases o paraprofessional(s) and/or; o student(s) with disabilities and/or; o classroom(s) This request includes but is not limited to electronic and/or physical documents. This request seeks responsive documents be delivered in electronic format and in the format in which they are regularly maintained and specifically includes all electronic metadata. Prior Appeal This request was the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR26/0982 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (March 30, 2026). In my March 30th determination, I ordered the School to revise its fee estimate or further explain how its fee of $50 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The School responded on April 13, 2026. Unsatisfied with the response, the requestor petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1371, was opened as a result. 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

Celeste Andrade SPR26/1371 Page 2 April 24, 2026 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 the requestor’s appeal petition, the requestor contends: Dudley incorrectly believes that they may charge for responding to requests, responding to appeals and the like. Dudley may [only] charge for search, segregation ([only] where legally allowed) and redaction (again, [only] where legally allowed), nothing more, nothing less. Dudley admits that they have [only] 36 pages of responsive records and they have generically stated that they segregated and redacted “…to remove education/student record information under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a)” which is the statutory exemption, without specifically citing the statute(s) which apply. Further, segregation and redaction of 36 pages [cannot] take more than 36 minutes, total. Dudley has not demonstrated that it takes more than one minute to segregate and redact these records and this is all Dudley should be allowed, and it falls squarely within the 120 minutes they must provide free-of-charge. The School’s April 13th Fee Estimate In its April 13, 2026 response, the School provided the following information in support of its $50 fee estimate:

Celeste Andrade SPR26/1371 Page 3 April 24, 2026 Notwithstanding, after receipt of the Supervisor’s determination in this matter, the District did search for and compile 36 pages of responsive records using the search parameters you provided on its email system and the process described in the March 18 response letter. The records were then segregated and redacted, and all segregation and redaction were required by law to remove education/student record information under M.G.L. c.4, §7(26)(a) for the reasons described in the March 18 response letter. We have prepared those records for reproduction, pending your payment of the fee. This post-appeal response process took a total of approximately 3 hours and 35 minutes of employee time. The District also spent at least 45 minutes preparing its March 18 response to this request with all of the explanation required by law—because this letter incorporates the March 18 response by reference, we have avoided the need to spend additional time providing those explanations post-appeal. Based on the foregoing, using the calculations described in the March 18 response letter, the revised calculated fee for these records would be $58.25. (4.33 total hours, less 2 hours of free time = 2.33 hours x $25.00/hour). However, while this process took slightly longer than the District estimated, the District will honor its original time estimate of 4 hours and corresponding fee estimate of $50.00. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the School’s response, the School has not provided a sufficient explanation supporting its calculation of 4.33 total hours of employee time to produce the responsive records. Although the School identified 36 pages of responsive records and states, “[t]his post-appeal response process took a total of approximately 3 hours and 35 minutes of employee time,” it is not clear from the School’s response how much time it allocated to search, and how much time it allocated for segregation and/or redaction of the records. Specifically, it remains unclear the number of minutes that the School spent per page for segregation and/or redaction. It is also unclear how the School is permitted to charge for “45 minutes preparing its March 18 response to this request with all of the explanation required by law.” The School must provide additional information regarding the tasks performed in the 4.33 hours of employee time it has already expended, and how G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) permits the assessment of a fee for the performance of those tasks. For the reasons discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the total fee of $50 assessed in its April 13th estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages the requestor and the School to communicate further 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 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). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate.

Celeste Andrade SPR26/1371 Page 4 April 24, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide the requestor with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. The requestor may further appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Open Commonwealth