Pacy, Michael v. Shrewsbury, Town of - Public Schools (SPR 20261423)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 28, 2026 SPR26/1423 Chris Girardi Records Access Officer Shrewsbury Public Schools 100 Maple Avenue Shrewsbury, MA 01545 Dear Mr. Girardi: I have received the petition of Michael Pacy appealing the response of the Shrewsbury Public Schools (School) to two requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On March 16, 2026, Mr. Pacy and Ms. Cathy Pacy each submitted a request for public records as follows: Request 1: . . . all public records and communications involving Shrewsbury School District employees [identified individual] and [identified individual] for the period of September 3, 2024, through September 15, 2024. I request all forms of communication, including but not limited to: [1] Emails sent or received via district or personal email accounts, including all metadata (sender, recipients, CC, BCC, timestamps), attachments, and drafts. [2] Text messages or messaging app communications, including SMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger or other platforms, whether on personal or district devices. [3] Written notes, memos, or minutes from meetings (formal or informal), including drafts and revisions. [4] Calendars, scheduling entries, or meeting invitations that reflect meetings, calls, or other interactions between these individuals. [5] Phone call records and logs, including calls made or received on district or personal phones, and all voicemail messages. [6] Video or audio recordings of meetings, calls, or other interactions. [7] Internal messaging platforms (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Chat, or similar), including message content, timestamps, and participant lists. [8] Any other forms of communication exchanged between these individuals, 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

Chris Girardi SPR26/1423 Page 2 April 28, 2026 including letters, notes, or documents in physical or electronic format. [9] Logs or records of communications that may capture BCC recipients, email server activity, or metadata not otherwise visible in the message headers. [10] Communications with third parties where either [identified individuals] were CC’d or included[.] Request 2: . . . all public records and communications involving Shrewsbury School District employees [identified individual] and [identified individual] for the period of February 2, 2026 through February 13, 2026. I request all forms of communication, including but not limited to: [1] Emails sent or received via district or personal email accounts, including all metadata (sender, recipients, CC, BCC, timestamps), attachments, and drafts. [2] Text messages or messaging app communications, including SMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger or other platforms, whether on personal or district devices. [3] Written notes, memos, or minutes from meetings (formal or informal), including drafts and revisions. [4] Calendars, scheduling entries, or meeting invitations that reflect meetings, calls, or other interactions between these individuals. [5] Phone call records and logs, including calls made or received on district or personal phones, and all voicemail messages. [6] Video or audio recordings of meetings, calls, or other interactions. [7] Internal messaging platforms (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Chat, or similar), including message content, timestamps, and participant lists. [8] Any other forms of communication exchanged between these individuals, including letters, notes, or documents in physical or electronic format. [9] Logs or records of communications that may capture BCC recipients, email server activity, or metadata not otherwise visible in the message headers. [10] Communications with third parties where either [identified individuals] were CC’d or included[.] The School responded on March 30, 2026, providing a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the response, Mr. Pacy petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/1423, was opened as a result. 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

Chris Girardi SPR26/1423 Page 3 April 28, 2026 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 his appeal petition, Mr. Pacy contends: The district took it upon themselves to combine two separate requests into one request based on the opinion of legal counsel. The requests were done separately and one request is for data in 2024 and the other request is for data in 2026. I’m appealing the notion that these requests constitute one request per “legal counsel” and also appealing the cost of $157.50 for the public records. The district claims there are 248 pages of communication, this request is solely for communication between 2 individuals in a 13-day time period – I find that 248 pages of communication between these 2 individuals to be pretty much impossible, unless they are communication 24/7 for 13 straight days. Mr. Pacy is advised that a requestor may not divide a request into multiple parts in order to circumvent the fees allowed by the Public Records Law. The School’s March 30th Fee Estimate On March 30, 2026, the School provided the following information in support of its $157.50 fee estimate: With regard to your request, a search of both requested areas for public record has yielded 126 potentially responsive records with an estimated 248 pages of communications. To produce these records, the District provides the following fee estimate. . . . In this case, the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to segregate and redact the records requested is a salaried employee whose effective hourly rate exceeds $25 per hour. In accordance with 950 CMR 37.02(2)(m)(1), you will not be charged for the first two (2) hours of those services and will only be charged at a rate of $25 per hour.

Chris Girardi SPR26/1423 Page 4 April 28, 2026 Each of the records you seek must be reviewed to determine which exemption or privilege applies. . . . The District estimates that it will take one minute per record page to segregate and review them. The District also estimates that it will take one minute per record to redact them. In total, there are 248 estimated pages to segregate, review, and redact the 126 potentially responsive records. This totals 496 minutes to segregate, review, and redact the records. As a result, the District estimates a total of 8.3 hours for the responsive documents. This estimate was based on a review of the search results based on the criteria provided. You will not be charged for the first two hours. 6.3 hours for segregation and redaction at the rate of $25 per hour yields a total fee estimate of $157.50. The actual fee to produce these records may vary based on the actual time spent to complete the necessary review and redaction process. The District will not begin to review the records you seek until it receives a check in the amount of $157.50. Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate In its fee estimate, the School has explained that it is not charging a fee for the first two hours of work, and has clarified that the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who has the skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact, or reproduce the requested records is over $25.00 per hour. Further, the School has estimated the process of compiling, reviewing, and preparing responsive documents for production will take 8.3 total hours of employee time, based on its identification of 126 responsive records, and consisting of 248 pages of communications. The School additionally states “that it will take one minute per record page to segregate and review . . . [and] it will take one minute per record to redact them.” However, based on the School’s response, I find the School must clarify if any redactions will be required by law, and state the applicable statutes, if any. Pursuant to the Public Records Law, a fee may 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 must clarify this matter. For the reason discussed above, I find the School must revise its fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee of $157.50 assessed in its March 30th estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). This office encourages Mr. Pacy and the School to communicate further in order to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Pacy may wish to narrow his 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 agency 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.

Chris Girardi SPR26/1423 Page 5 April 28, 2026 Conclusion Accordingly, the School is ordered to provide Mr. Pacy 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. Mr. Pacy may appeal the substantive nature of the School’s response within ninety days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Michael Pacy