“Can you over estimate the time that it would take you to compile/copy the invoices requested and let me know when you have a chance?” one district employee wrote in a May 12, 2025, email, which York obtained in a broader record release. “Hopefully, when I let [York] know the cost they will not want to do it.”
The request in question ended up getting fulfilled for free, rather than York having to pay the $1,000 estimate, as part of the same data release that the email was in. Lexington Superintendent Julie Hackett apologized to York after he notified her of the duplicitous email last month. But York and other residents have been assessed even higher cost estimates for other requests, documents show, and they suspect the intentional over-charging in this case reflects a broader culture at Lexington Public Schools.
In a broader sense, the email exemplifies the consequence-free resistance to releasing records by public agencies across Massachusetts, said Justin Silverman, an attorney and the executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
“It’s a symptom of our poor public records law that allows those in government agencies, whether it’s a school or some other public body, to play games with the law to withhold records that should be given to the public, and most of the time do so without any kind of accountability,” Silverman said.
Silverman said he could not recall another instance of such clear proof of deceit.
In an email to the Globe, Hackett reiterated her apology to York.
“The email was highly inappropriate and does not reflect our values,” Hackett said. “We have investigated and addressed the matter internally, and we appointed a new Records Access Officer.”
The email was written by Kristen McGrath, executive administrative assistant for human resources. Until recently, the district’s records officer was Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Christine Lyons. Hackett said she could not comment on personnel matters, but both are still listed on the district website.
York’s records request was part of an investigation he and other parents launched into curriculum and central office spending, arising originally from concerns about special education and literacy instruction in the district. York was seeking documentation for expense reports by Hackett, among other records. How, he wanted to know, did the Central Office spend $25,000 last year at the Beauport Hotel, or more than $900 at a Capital Burger?
Shortly after McGrath sent the “over estimate” email in May, the district told York the request would take 40 hours to fulfill and cost $1,000. He launched a fund-raising campaign on May 13, which came to the superintendent’s attention, and that night she said at a School Committee meeting that she would cancel the invoice.
The district went on to release 60,000 pages of communications, which included the email that went unnoticed until last month.
Other records provided by York show that contrary to Hackett’s summary of district policy, the district has repeatedly charged residents fees, sometimes in excess of the $1,000 it sought on York’s request.
On Sept. 16, just a month before Hackett’s email, the district assessed a $2,198.75 fee to York to compile and redact records related to curriculum consultants.
Another parent shared records with the Globe indicating she was assessed $1,200 in fees for an August request; after she appealed to the state record’s supervisor in October and York notified the state of the email, her fee was reduced to $250.
Silverman said it was critical that the superintendent make sure employees comply with the law going forward, but it also shows the need for sharper teeth on the state’s public records law.
Massachusetts residents have made increasing appeals to the supervisor in recent years, with the number filed rising from about 1,600 in 2017 to about 3,000 last year, according to the public records division of the Massachusetts secretary of state’s office. But the records supervisor, part of the secretary of the Commonwealth’s office, has no ability to enforce its own rulings, Silverman said.
The attorney general’s office can take on cases, he added, but it rarely does.
In an attempt to get another record request fulfilled, York shared the “over-estimate” email with the state’s records supervisor, as evidence of a “broader culture within LPS regarding how public records are handled.”
In a response, the supervisor, Manza Arthur, took note of the email but took no further action, instead encouraging York and the school “to communicate further in order to facilitate producing records efficiently and affordably.”
Debra O’Malley, a spokesperson for the secretary of the Commonwealth, said the “office certainly does not condone or support any effort to overestimate or overcharge,” but it was not appropriate to refer the matter to the attorney general’s office without a determination on the merits of the fee estimate.
“If the requester is unsatisfied with the revised fee estimate they receive, they may certainly contact our office to reopen the appeal,” O’Malley said.
For York, it feels like there’s no clear way to get the records he’s seeking.
“Everything feels like a coverup,” York said. “They do what they want with zero accountability.”
John Hilliard of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Christopher Huffaker can be reached at christopher.huffaker@globe.com. Follow him @huffakingit.
About the Author
