Amy Kates v. Cotuit, Town of - Fire District (SPR 20181258)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records September 12,201 8 SPR1811258 Ray Pirrone Treasurer Cotuit Fire District 64 High Street Cotuit, MA 02635 Dear Mr. Pirrone: I have received the petition of Amy Kates appealing the response of the Cotuit Fire District (District) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 5 IOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Ms. Kates requested "invoices received from any attorneys retained by the Board of Fire Commissioners, to include the reasons for the requests for representation, for the period of 71111 6 through 613011 7." Previous appeals This request was the subject of previous appeals. SPR1711470 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 25,20 17); SPR1711566 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (November 14,201 7); SPR17117 15 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (December 22,20 17); SPR181133 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (February 13, 20 18); SPR18110 17 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (July 25,2018 ). In my July 25th determination I ordered the District to provide Ms. Kates a response in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Access Regulations (Regulations) and the order. The District provided a response regarding redactions on August 15,2018 . Ms. Kates appealed and SPR1811258 was opened as a result. Current appeal I understand that Ms. Kates paid a fee of $96.00 and on May 22,201 8 the District provided responsive records. In my July 2jthd etermination I found the District must explain why 4 hours were needed to produce the records; specifically, I found it must describe how much time was needed to search for the records versus how much time was needed to segregate andlor redact. The District was also ordered to explain whether the redactions are required by law. I also One Ashburton Place, Room 17 19, Boston, Massachusetts 02 108 (61 7) 727-2832. Fax: (6 17) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre pre@sec.state.ma.us

Ray Pirrone Page 2 September 12,201 8 found that the District must explain how an exemption or applicable privilege applies to the withheld portions of responsive records. Redactions The August 15 thr esponse, sent on behalf of the District by Attorney Marielise Kelly, explains "[wle have provided you every bill, in redacted form, and you have amounts billed on each invoice, and the general subject matter of each attorney's work." The District also provides a log describing the redactions that includes the date of the invoices, legal provider, type of document, general subject matter, attorney involved, and the "Reason for the Assertion of Privilege and/or exemption from the public records law." I understand that Attorney Kelly confirmed with a Public Records Division attorney that no other responsive records exist. In her appeal petition Ms. Icates indicates that with respect to the August 15 thr esponse, "[hler grid identified dates of service, provider and general subject matter, but fails to provide the fee charged for each specific subject matter. The invoices I received have conflicting information, examples of prior balances for different occurrences. It is the cost of legal expenses for each separate occurrence that I requested in September of 201 7. Almost a year later and after paying $96.00 I still don't have a clear and concise response." Ms. Kates asks this office to "close this matter by having the Cotuit Fire District reimburse me the $96.00 dollars that I paid." Upon review of the records provided to Ms. Kates, along with the District's August 15 th response, it appears the responsive records reveal the relevant financial information. It should be noted that the duty to comply with requests for records extends to those records that exist and are in the possession, custody, or control of the custodian of records at the time of the request. See G. L, c. 66, 9 lO(a)(ii). Fees Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, this office received a response from the District dated August 16,2018 that contains additional detail regarding the basis for the fee. In previous correspondence, including a July 9,2018 letter to this office, Ms. Kates indicates she initially requested the records on September 23,20 17. I understand the District responded on October 10, 2017 by indicating "1 apologize for the late reply. I was waiting on an estimate of cost to fulfill your request. It was estimated the cost for [the] request is $60.00. This estimate may change once the information [has] been collected. If the estimate is agreeable I will have the Treasurer begin his search." A records custodian may not charge a fee unless the custodian provides a written response in compliance with G. L. c. 66, § lO(b) within ten business days following receipt of the request. See G. L. c. 66, 5 1O (e). The District may not be permitted to charge fees associated with the September 23rdr equest if the District did not provide a response in compliance with this provision of the law. See G. L. c. 66, fj 10(e); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2)(c). Therefore, I find the District must demonstrate whether it responded to the records request within ten business

Ray Pirrone Page 3 September 12,2018 days following receipt of the request in compliance with G. L, c. 66, 5 10(e) and 950 C.M.R 32.06(2)(c). Conclusion Accordingly, the District is ordered to provide Ms. ICates a response in a manner consistent with the Public Records Law, its Regulations, and this order within 10 business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@,sec.state.ma.us. Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Amy Kates Marielise Kelly, Esq.