← Back to Search
Ronald P. Matta v. Brockton, City of - Office of the Mayor (SPR 20160711)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond · Filed 09-02-2016
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20160711 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Ronald P. Matta concerning records held by Brockton, City of - Office of the Mayor, opened 09-02-2016. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to respond.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20160711
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Ronald P. Matta
- Date Opened
- 09-02-2016
- Date Closed
- 09-19-2016
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords September 19, 2016 SPR16/711 Mr. Phillip C. Nessralla, Jr., Esq. City Solicitor City of Brockton 45 School Street Brockton, MA 02301 Dear Attorney Nessralla: I have received the petition of Ronald Matta appealing the response of the City of Brockton (City) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 10(b); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). In his original request dated March 18, 2016, Mr. Matta requested a number of records pertaining to "sent and received emails from the email account Mayorbillcarpenter@gmail.com from November 5, 3013 to March 18, 2016." Upon receiving a fee estimate of $10,000.00 for provision of public records Mr. Matta petitioned this office. Fee estimate A custodian of records may assess a reasonable fee for complying with a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(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 ($10.00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). Absent specific statutory authority to the contrary, the fees to be charged for complying with requests for public records are established by the Public Records Access Regulations (Regulations). See 950 C.M.R. 32.06 (fees for public records). Under the Regulations, a custodian of records may assess a maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy 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, § 10(a). OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma. us/ pre Mr. Phillip C. Nessralla, Jr., Esq. SPR16/711 Page2 September 19, 2016 The City explains that an "outside consulting firm" will have to be used to "extract all email from the Mayor's Gmail account and export into a (or a series of) .pst files." The City contends that "the total price quoted for that service .. .is approximately $6,880.00. (Then) A member ofthe Law Department, either the undersigned or an Assistant City Solicitor, will be required to review all of the emails ... " The cost for that will be no less than $3,000.00, bringing the total amount for the fee estimate to be "a minimum of $1 0,000.00". It is unclear why an outside consulting firm has to be brought in to extract the responsive records. Further, the City has not explained with specificity why the Assistant City Solicitor is the lowest paid individual who can perform the task ofreviewing the responsive emails. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(1)(c). The City provided no breakdown for the $3,000.00 cost for the "time involved." Order I find the City has not provided detail required to justify the expense for responding to Mr. Matta's public records request. Accordingly, the City is hereby ordered to review the fee estimate made to Mr. Matta and provide a revised written fee estimate, made in accordance with the Public Records Law, its Access Regulations and this order. The response must address the issues described above and also provide an explanation to justify the estimated time needed to search for and segregate the records. Mr. Matta may appeal the substantive nature of the City's response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Supervisor of Records cc: Mr. Ron Matta