Elizabeth Garthe v. Marblehead, Town of (SPR 20192307)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Fraricis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray S11pe11•isor of Records November 27, 2019 SPR19/2307 Kyle Wiley Town of Marblehead Abbot Hall 188 Washington Street Marblehead, MA 01945 Dear Ms. Wile: I have received the petition of Nicholas Mango and Elizabeth Gaiihe appealing the response of the Town of Marblehead (Town) to a request for public records. G. L c. 66, § lOA; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1 ). Specifically, on October 18, 2019 the Town received a request for records from Nicholas Mango and Elizabeth Garthe for the following records: "1. Copies of all billing invoices, exactly as submitted to the Town, by all individuals and/or firms acting as legal counsel or providing legal services to the Town or its agents, for the period between April 1, 2015 and October 18, 2019. We request copies of the original invoices as paid by the Town for all tasks and matters. A summary of the invoice amounts is not responsive to this request; we are specifically requesting copies of all the original invoices. 2. Copies of the record of each payment made to all the individuals and/or firms acting as legal counsel to the Town its agents, for the period between April 1, 2015 and October 18, 2019 inclusive whether related to the above invoices or not. Images of the checks (front sides), or the transaction data for electronic transfers are acceptable for the payment materials. The payment materials should include documentation showing who approved or authorized each payment if such authorization is not part of the payment itself. If whole groups of payments were authorized by one individual, then it is acceptable to submit that authorization once and indicate to which group of payments it applies." The Town's Fee Petition to charge for segregation and/or redaction time A municipality may not charge for segregation and redaction unless required by law or a petition has been filed and approved by the Supervisor of Records. G. L. c. 66, § lO(d); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The.Town previously submitted a petition related to the ability to assess 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

Kyle Wiley SPR19/2307 Page 2 November 27, 2019 fees for time spent segregating and/or redacting responsive records, as well as to charge an hourly rate over $25. See SPR19/2198 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (October 31, 2019). In the October 31st determination, I found the Town may assess a fee, in excess of $25 per hour, for the time spent to compile, segregate, and redact the requested records. However, this allowance was limited to the rate of $75.00 per hour. Further, I found the Town must provide a fee estimate outlining the number of hours that were needed to produce the records. Current appeal In the requestor's appeal petition, the requestors states that "[w]e do not believe the materials should be redacted" and "the Town should not be able to invoke privilege and is in facts required to disclose the information ... " The requestors explain "denial of public access to the records in contrary to the public safety and interests." Further, the requestors indicate "[t]he Town apparently has charged us for the first two hours - that are supposed to be free - on all of the fees charged for producing the materials in response to all our FOIAs to date." The requestors assert, "[s]hould the Secretary of State rule that the Town may redact some information from the Towh Counsels' invoices, we request that the redaction be kept to an absolute minimum." In light of the determination of SPR19/2198, and after reviewing the appeal filed by the requestors, it is unclear the nature of the requestors' objections. Specifically, it is unclear whether the requestors are appealing a fee estimate provided by the Town in accordance with SPRl 9/2198, or if the requestors are requesting a reconsideration of the determination made in SPRl 9/2198. The requestors must clarify this issue. Conclusion Accordingly, in light of the above, I find the requestors' appeal is unclear as to the objections to the responses provided to the request. The requestors may resubmit the appeal to this office once he or she clarifies these matters. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1)(:t) (all petitions for appeal shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the nature of the requestor's objections to the response or failure to provide a timely response). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Elizabeth Gaiihe