Gregory, Dan v. Milford, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20140516)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor of& cords October 31, 2014 SPR14/516 Mr. Richard A. Villani Town of Milford, Town Hall 52 Main Street Milford, MA 01757 Dear Mr. Villani: I have received the petition of Dan Gregory appealing the response of the Town of Milford (Town) to his request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1O (b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(6). Specifically, Mr. Gregory requested copies of the following: 1. Records containing information regarding combined-response programs, policies, agreements or discussions, between Milford and/or Massachusetts; particularly, but not limited to: Milford Police Department and the Massachusetts State Police and/or the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety; and 2. Records containing Town protocols implicating enforcement authorities. In response to Mr. Gregory's request, you provided him with a fee estimate of $114.32 to provide responsive records, and Mr. Gregory paid the estimated fees. In a July 29, 2014 email, you notified Mr. Gregory that the records were available, but additional time needed to compile responsive records, requiring an additional fee of $346.39. In an October 21 telephone conversation with an attorney on my staff, Chief Thomas J. O'Loughlin of the Milford Police Department (Department) provided additional, detailed information regarding the Town's second fee estimate. It appears that the detailed breakdown of the second fee estimate was not provided to Mr. Gregory. This detail was not included in your July 29th email to him, Chief O'Loughlin was uncertain as to whether this information was provided to Mr. Gregory, and Mr. Gregory's petition for appeal to this office stated that he was unsuccessful in his attempts to clarify the fee estimate. The Town is advised that a records custodian shall provide a written, good faith estimate that includes a detailed breakdown of all applicable costs to be incurred in complying with a public records request. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2). While the Town provided this required detail in its first fee estimate, the Town failed to provide that same level of detail to Mr. Gregory in its second fee estimate. OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre

Mr. Richard A. Villani SPR14/516 Page Two October 31, 2014 According to Chief O'Loughlin, the first fee estimate was based on a review with his administrative assistant regarding the records that may be responsive to Mr. Gregory's request. Subsequent to the Town's fee estimate calculation, Lieutenant James Falvey became aware of the request and notified Chief O'Loughlin that additional responsive records were held within the Department's investigative services area and the dispatcher communications center. Chief O'Loughlin also stated to my attorney that additional responsive records were further identified within the Department's archives. ChiefO'Loughlin provided this office with a copy ofthe Department's detailed breakdown of the second fee estimate. This estimate includes identification of the employees conducting each task, the number of hours required to complete each task, and the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who was capable of performing each task, which was not always the employee who ultimately performed that task. Based on my review of this matter, it is my finding that the Department's calculation for its second fee estimate is reasonable. The fee estimate provides the required detail, and the hours required to complete each task are reasonable given the broad nature of Mr. Gregory's request. As Chief O'Loughlin stated to this office, records responsive this request includes virtually every state grant that the Department has received. Furthermore, the responsive records need to be reviewed for any information that the Department would consider exempt from disclosure, such as the names of confidential informants and agents involved in alcohol compliance efforts. This office will rely on the representation of Chief O'Loughlin with respect to the effort required to search for and segregate records responsive to this request. See Konover Mgt.Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Auburn, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 319, 326 (1992) (the strong presumption that a public official will perform honestly and impartially and will properly discharge the duties ofhis office in the public interest). If the Town has not already done so, it is hereby ordered to provide Mr. Gregory with its detailed breakdown with respect to the second fee estimate. Furthermore, the Town is advised that it must provide this detailed fee estimate information in response to any public records request it may receive where it believes that it will incur a cost to provide responsive records. Whereas I have determined that both of the Department's fee estimate calculations are reasonable, this administrative appeal is now closed. urs, illiams Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Dan Gregory Chief Thomas J. O'Loughlin