Allien, Carl v. Lynnfield, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261373)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 21, 2026 SPR26/1373 Thomas Geary Superintendent of Schools Lynnfield Public Schools 525 Salem Street Lynnfield, MA 01940 Dear Mr. Geary: On April 13, 2026, this office received your petition on behalf of the Lynnfield Public Schools (School/District) seeking an extension of time to produce records and 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, Carl Allien. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L.c. 66, § 10(d)(iv)(2). On March 29, 2026, Mr. Allien requested, “[e]mails, records, incident reports, protocols, policies, letters to parents, complaints, IEP correspondences, and safety concerns of members of the Lynnfield Public Schools pertaining to [an identified individual].” Petition for an Extension of Time Under the Public Records Law, upon a showing of good cause, the Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may grant a single extension to an agency not to exceed 20 business days and a single extension to a municipality not to exceed 30 business days. In determining whether there has been a showing of good cause, the Supervisor shall consider, but shall not be limited to considering: (i) the need to search for, collect, segregate or examine records; (ii) the scope of redaction required to prevent unlawful disclosure; (iii) the capacity or the normal business hours of operation of the agency or municipality to produce the request without the extension; (iv) efforts undertaken by the agency or municipality in fulfilling the current request and previous requests; (v) whether the request, either individually or as part of a series of requests from the same requestor, is frivolous or intended to harass or intimidate the agency or municipality; and 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

Thomas Geary SPR26/1373 Page 2 April 21, 2026 (vi) the public interest served by expeditious disclosure. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). If the Supervisor determines that the request is part of a series of contemporaneous requests that are frivolous or designed to intimidate or harass, and the requests are not intended for the broad dissemination of information to the public about actual or alleged government activity, the Supervisor may grant a longer extension or relieve the agency or municipality of its obligation to provide copies of the records sought. Id. The filing of a petition does not affect the requirement that a Records Access Officer (RAO) must provide an initial response to a requestor within ten business days after receipt of a request for public records. 950 C.M.R. 36.06(4)(b). Request for Additional Time to Produce Records In its petition, the School requests “at least thirty (30) business days to respond to the request…” In support of its request the School provides the following information: Because of the magnitude and difficulty of the request, the District is petitioning the supervisory of records for additional time to respond to this request. This request requires a thorough search, segregation and examination of a large volume of records. The materials being reviewed will likely include information prohibited from disclosure. There are limited staff with the expertise and availability to interpret documents in light of this request. These staff have duties critical for the operations of the school district. In light of the need to collect and examine the records, and the capacity of the School to produce the records without an extension, the School has established good cause to permit an extension of time. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c)(i)-(iii). The School is granted an extension of 30 business days. 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).

Thomas Geary SPR26/1373 Page 3 April 21, 2026 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 In its petition, the School requests permission “to assess a fee to segregate and redact the requested information.” In support of its petition, the School provides the following information: The attached record request is broad in scope and relates to correspondence by District employees who often correspond regarding information that is exempt from disclosure under public records law and even prohibited from disclosure by statute. For example, student records are prohibited and exempt from disclosure under state and federal law. Also, the District expects that much of the correspondence is exempt from public records law. See Student Records Law MGL Ch. 71 § 34D, 34E; FERPA 20 USC §1232G; and Right of Privacy MGL

Thomas Geary SPR26/1373 Page 4 April 21, 2026 Ch. 214 §1B; See also MGL Ch. 4 §7(26)(a)-(c). In an email to the office on April 16, 2026, the School provided further clarification regarding the exemptions claims, stating, “[t]hese records would likely be exempt under Exemption A, statutory exemption: Student Records Law MGL Ch. 71 § 34D, 34E; FERPA 20 USC §1232G; and Right of Privacy MGL Ch. 214 §1B.” Please be advised, records custodians may assess fees for time spent segregating or redacting records where such segregation or redaction is required by law. See 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(d) (stating that fee for segregation or redaction is permissible when approved by Supervisor or when required by law. Where the School only seeks to assess fees as required by law under Exemption (a) of the Public Records Law, I find it unnecessary to opine on whether the School may assess fees for segregating and redacting the records. Conclusion Accordingly, I find that the School has established good cause for a time extension of 30 business days as described above. Additionally, as described above, I find it is unnecessary to opine on the School’s petition for permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. Please note, Mr. Allien 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: Carl Allien