Hubbard, Jared v. River Valley Charter School (SPR 20261383)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1383 Karen Kuse Executive Director River Valley Charter School 2 Perry Way Newburyport, MA 01950 Dear Ms. Kuse: I have received the petition of Jared Hubbard appealing the response of the River Valley Charter School (School/RVCS) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 30, 2026, Mr. Hubbard requested the following: 1. The employment contract of [a named individual] 2. The contract and any documents reflecting the scope of work for which Blue Lion HR Consulting was retained 3. All responses received as part of any survey done by Blue Lion HR Consulting on behalf of RVCS 4. All reports, including draft or interim reports, received from Blue Lion HR Consulting 5. Any communications with Blue Lion HR Consulting regarding their no longer working with RVCS 6. All grievances or complaints submitted to the Board from September 1, 2025 to the present 7. All responses and/or resolutions to any grievances or complaints submitted to the Board from September 1, 2025 to the present 8. A list of all agendas and minutes for all meetings of the Complaint Committee or Grievance Committee of the Board from September 1, 2025 to the present 9. All communications between [three named individuals] regarding [a named individual]’s resignation as Chair of the Board 10. All communications between [two named individuals] from October 1, 2025 to the present 11. All communications between [two named individuals] from October 1, 2025 to February 25, 2026 12. All communications sent from [a named individual] to any member of 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

Karen Kuse SPR26/1383 Page 2 April 28, 2026 Board concerning RVCS from February 25, 2026 to March 28, 2026 13. Any engagement letters or contracts for attorneys or human resources consultants retained by RVCS between October 1, 2025 and the present 14. All invoices received by RVCS from attorneys or human resources consultants between October 1, 2025 to the present[.] The School responded on April 10, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the School’s response, Mr. Hubbard petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR26/1383, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. Fee Estimates - Agencies An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four (4) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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.

Karen Kuse SPR26/1383 Page 3 April 28, 2026 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)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The School’s April 10th Response In its April 10, 2026 response, the School gives a total fee estimate of $875, and explains the following: Please be aware that RVCS reserves the right to assert exemptions or privileges with respect to any records responsive to your request. Such exemptions or privileges may include, but are not limited to: 1. Exemption (a) – documents that are specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute; 2. Exemption (b) - related solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the government unit, provided however, that such records shall be withheld only to the extent that proper performance of necessary governmental functions requires such withholding; 3. Exemption (c) - personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 4. Exemption (o) - the home address, personal email address and home telephone number of public employees; 5. Exemption (p) - the home address, personal email address and home telephone number of family members of public employees; 6. The attorney-client privilege; and/or 7. Any other applicable exemption or privilege. An initial search indicates that records responsive to your request are in the custody of RVCS. In accordance with 950 CMR 32.07(2)(b), RVCS provides the following initial good faith estimate of the cost to comply with your request: Search time by the lowest-paid RVCS employee(s) capable of searching for and compiling responsive records: 15 hours at $25.00 per hour, for a total of $375.00. Segregation and redaction of records, as required by law, by the lowest-paid RVCS employee(s) and/or legal counsel capable of searching for and compiling responsive records: 20 hours at $25.00 per hour, for a total of $500.00. Grand total good faith estimate: $875.00. RVCS will endeavor to provide electronic files, however, if you request paper copies rather than electronic files, you will be required to pay an additional $0.05 per page for black and white copies. All of the lowest-paid employees capable of searching for and compiling responsive records and segregating and redacting,

Karen Kuse SPR26/1383 Page 4 April 28, 2026 referenced above, are paid at rates in excess of $25 per hour, and therefore this estimate is based upon the maximum rate of $25 per hour as required under the Public Records Law. In accordance with 950 CMR 32.06(2)(f), RVCS requires payment in full of the amount of the initial good faith estimate prior to complying with your request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Hubbard states, among other things, the following: Notably, the School did not take advantage of Section 10(b)(vii) by suggesting any reasonable modification of these requests in order to produce records “sought more efficiently and affordably.” I remain happy to work with the School to refine these requests so that they are not burdensome. 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.

Karen Kuse SPR26/1383 Page 5 April 28, 2026 In the present case, where Mr. Hubbard has expressed willingness to narrow the scope of his request, this office encourages Mr. Hubbard and the School to communicate directly in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Hubbard may consider 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) (an agency 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 agency to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Conclusion If outstanding issues remain after Mr. Hubbard and the School communicate further as described above, Mr. Hubbard may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Jared Hubbard Marc L. Terry, Esq.