Moschella, Esq., William v. Rowley, Town of - Town Administrator (SPR 20150871)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords January 5, 2016 SPRlS/871 Ms. Deborah Eagan Town Administrator Town of Rowley 139 Main Street, PO Box 275 Rowley, MA 01969 Dear Ms. Eagan: I have received the petition of William A. Moschella appealing the response of the Town of Rowley (Town) for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Mr. Moschella requested copies of records regarding the Town of Rowley Water Commissions and specifically, he requested information relating to a purchase order that was presented to the Town for payment as well as the denial of payment reportedly filed for order number 2247 dated September 14,2015. Initially when Mr. Moschella requested the records on October 21, 2015, Town responded with a fee estimate of$73.90 dated October 28,2015. On November 3, 2015 Mr. Moschella made a similar request and once again you responded via letter, dated November 12, 2015. In this second response you indicated your presumption that the November 3 request mirrored the October 21 request; therefore you enclosed a copy of the October 28 response for Mr. Moschella's review which included the fee estimate for the records requested. Mr. Moschella appealed what he characterized as "delays and high fees." Fees for provision ofpublic records The October 28, 2015 Town provided Mr. Moschella with a written estimate of $73.90 for the total cost of providing copies of responsive records. A custodian of records may charge a fee to cover the costs of conducting a search for records and for physical copies of records, however those fees must be reasonable and in compliance with the Public Records Law Access Regulations (Regulation). G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2) (where cost of complying with a request for public records is expected to exceed ten dollars ($10.00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). Absent specific statutory authority to the contrary, the fees to be charged for complying with requests for public records are established by the Regulations. 950 C.M.R. 32. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832. Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/pre

Ms. Deborah Eagan SPR15/871 Page Two January 5, 2016 Under the Regulations, a custodian of records may assess a maximum fee of twenty cents ($.20) per page for a photocopy of a public record and fifty cents ($.50) per page for a computer print out of a public record. See 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1 )(a). In addition to the copying fee, the Regulations provide that in cases where search or segregation time is necessary a custodian of records may charge a pro-rated fee based on the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(c). The Regulations define "search time" as the time needed to locate, pull from the file, copy and refile public records, and "segregation time" as the time used to redact data that is exempt from non-exempt material. 950 C.M.R. 32.03. The search and segregation fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. G. L. c. 66, § 1O (a). In both your written estimate and also a December 23, 2015 telephone conversation with a member of my staff, you explained the Town's fee estimate consisted of one (1) hour of time to locate the responsive records. You stated the task will be performed by the lowest paid employee, the Assistant Town Administrator, at an hourly rate of twenty-five dollars and forty cents ($25.40). Plus $23.40 for 117 copies of records at twenty cents ($.20) per page and $25.00 for 50 copies of emails at fifty cents ($.50) per page, this then will make the actual total to be $73.80, rather than the Town's original estimate of$73.90. I find this fee estimate is reasonable and was prepared in compliance with the Regulations. Timeliness of response to public records requests In his petition Mr. Moschella referenced what he referred to as "delays" in the Town's response to his requests for public records. Under the Public Records Law and the Access Regulations all requests for public records must be met with a response within ten (1 0) days of the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(b); 950 C.M.R. 32.05. The response may be an offer to provide records, a fee estimate for provision of the records, or a denial. Mr. Moschella made two requests to the Town that are the subject of this appeal. His first request is dated October 21, 2015. The Town's response is dated October 28, 2015. The second request is dated November 3, 2015. The Town's second response is dated November 12, 2015. I find both responses meet the timeliness requirement of the Public Records Law, as both responses were dated within ten (1 0) days of each respective request. Conclusion I find that the fee estimate and timeliness of response to Mr. Moschella's request were provided in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law and its Regulations. Further, I find the Town attempted to reduce the estimated fees by suggesting that Mr. Moschella "narrow the

Ms. Deborah Eagan SPR15/871 Page Three January 5, 2016 scope" of his request. Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed with the proviso that the Town revise its estimate calculation in a manner consistent with this determination. Upon payment of the fee, the Town is hereby ordered to provide the responsive records in a timely manner. cc: Mr. William A. Moschella, Esq.