← Back to Search
Keith Eddings v. Methuen, City of - Police Department (SPR 20190123)
Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records · Filed 01-18-2019
ClosedAppealPetitioner Won
SPR 20190123 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Keith Eddings concerning records held by Methuen, City of - Police Department, opened 01-18-2019. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Petitioner won — agency ordered to provide records.
Case Details
- Case Number
- 20190123
- Case Type
- Appeal
- Case Subtype
- Initial
- Status
- Closed
- Requester
- Keith Eddings
- Custodian
- Methuen, City of - Police Department
- Date Opened
- 01-18-2019
- Date Closed
- 02-04-2019
- Date Request Submitted
- 01-07-2019
- Response Provided Date
- 01-22-2019
- Processing Fees Charged
- 502.50
- Petitions Regarding Fees
- No
- Time to Comply
- 3 Business Days (2-7-19)
- Went to Court
- No
PDF Document
Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor ofR ecords February 4, 2019 SPR19/123 Captain Gregory Gallant Department RAO Methuen Police Department 41 Pleasant Street Methuen, MA O1 844 Dear Captain Gallant: I have received the petition of Keith Eddings of The Eagle-Tribune appealing the response of the Methuen Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Specifically, Mr. Eddings requested "copies ofrecords indicating: * the full compensation, including but not limited to salary, Police Chief Joseph Solomon is scheduled to receive in 2019; * the seminars, conferences and professional development events Chief Solomon attended in 2018; * the expenses the city incurred on Chief Solomon's behalf to allow him to attend seminars, conferences and professional development events, including transportation, accommodation, tuition and fees." The Department responded on January 22, 2019 by providing a fee estimate of $502.50 for the production ofrecords. Fee estimates A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d ). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832• Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre• pre@sec.state.ma.us Captain Gregory Gallant SPR19/123 Page 2 February 4, 2019 A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iii); 950 CMR 32.06(4). Appeal In its January 22nd response the Department indicated" ... portions of the request will need to be compiled from calendars, email, papers. Clerk/administrative assistant will need to be assigned to gather information from all data. [P]lease see attached estimate for one clerk/admin assistant assigned 20hrs." You explain that the estimate of $502.50 is based on 20 hours of time at an hourly rate of $25 per hour plus $2.50 in estimated printing costs. In his appeal petition Mr. Eddings states "I requested records indicating the full compensation Methuen Police Chief Joseph Solomon received in 2018, as well as records indicating what professional development events he attended and at what cost to the city in 2018. The agency responded that the cost of providing the records would be $502.50. I believe the charge is exces[s]ive." The Department provided additional information to this office on January 24, 2019; specifically, you indicate "[t]he information requested would need to be acquired from multiple locations. The pay and compensation would be acquired from the accountant's office. The information regarding seminars, conferences and professional development events Chief Solomon attended in 2018 would need to be obtained by hand from calendars, email, purchase orders, and city warrants." You further explain that" ... the payroll system for the Police Department which tracks the hours worked is separate from the server for payroll with the city which cuts the checks. Information would need to be acquired from both payroll systems. Estimate is based on past similar work performed with input from the administrative clerk." You also note that "[i]n order to perform the work, the estimate was broken down to the following: One Police Clerk/A dmin Assistant x $25.00 per hour x (22hrs-2hrs per state)+ 2.50 printing costs." I find the Department must explain why 22 hours are needed to produce the records; specifically, it must describe how much time is needed to search for the records versus how much time is needed to segregate and/or redact. The Department must also explain whether any such redactions are required by law. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d )(iii) ( a fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv)). The parties are encouraged to communicate further to determine whether any responsive data may be provided without delay. See G. L. c. 66, § lO(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce records sought more efficiently and affordably). Captain Gregory Gallant SPR19/123 Page 3 February 4, 2019 Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Mr. Eddings with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations 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: Keith Eddings