Rich Saltzberg v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (SPR 20192255)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records November 13, 2019 SPR19/2255 Sean F. Driscoll Communications Director Records Access Officer Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority 228 Palmer Ave. Falmouth, MA 02540 Dear Mr. Driscoll: I have received your petition on behalf of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority (Authority) requesting permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the requests. G. L. c. 66, § 10( c ); G. L. c. 66, § 10( d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). On September 19, 2019, Rich Saltzburg requested."[a]ny and all emails between Carl Walker and Senesco Marine employees or agents between February 2018 and June 2018." Petitions to assess fees The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from an records access officer to charge for time spent segregating or redacting or to charge in excess of $25 per hour, if the Supervisor determines that 1) the request is for a commercial purpose or 2) the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency or municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). In rendering such a decision, the Supervisor is required to consider the following: a) the public interest served by limiting the cost of public access to the records; b) the financial ability of the requestor to pay the additional or increased fees; and c) any other relevant extenuating circumstances. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a petition to allow the agency or municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records or to charge in excess of $25 an hour for the provision of public records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d)(iv). It is my determination that the request is not for a commercial purpose. 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

Sean F. Driscoll SPR19/2255 Page 2 November 13, 2019 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the agency or municipality to comply with the request. The Supervisor must consider 1) if the fee is necessary such that the request could not have been prudently completed without the redaction or segregation or fee in excess of $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Co11clusio11 The Authority submitted their petition on November 4, 2019, more than ten business days after receipt of the request. In light of the fact the Authority has not demonstrated it submitted a timely petition, permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records, and a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to the request, cannot be granted at this time. 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4)(g). Sincerely, ~~ Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Rich Saltzburg