MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Tim Bonham v. Department of Youth Services (SPR 20202402)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 12-03-2020

ClosedAppealDecision

SPR 20202402 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Tim Bonham concerning records held by Department of Youth Services, opened 12-03-2020. Type: Appeal. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20202402
Case Type
Appeal
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Tim Bonham
Custodian
Department of Youth Services
Date Opened
12-03-2020
Date Closed
12-17-2020
Date Request Submitted
11-10-2020
Response Provided Date
11-27-2020
Time to Comply
5 Business Days

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records December 17, 2020 SPR20/2402 Cecely A. Reardon General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Youth Services 600 Washington Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Dear Attorney Reardon: I have received the petition of Tim Bonham appealing the response of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (Department/DYS) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 10, 2020, Ms. Holmes-Kireilis requested the dates certain individuals “accessed camera footage from DYS cameras at MTU from 2018 to August of 2019…the procedures/guidelines or agreement with CES to access footage of DYS cameras…restrictions put on CES employees when viewing or requesting camera footage.” The Department provided a response on November 27, 2020, which included a fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the Department’s response, Mr. Bonham petitioned this office, and SPR20/2402 was opened as a result. Fee Estimates An agency 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). Agencies may not assess a fee for the first four hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii). Where appropriate, agencies 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. 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 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

Cecely A. Reardon, Esq. SPR20/2402 Page 2 December 17, 2020 Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Modification of the scope of the request Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, Mr. Bonham indicated in an email to this office “I am…willing to change the date for Art Scotts camera access to just 2019.” Additionally, the Department submitted a response to Mr. Bonham’s appeal on December 8, 2020, in which it indicated “DYS will waive the fees associated with producing and reviewing the responsive records if Mr. Bonham limits his request to emails sent by Arthur Scott to relevant Metro Region managers to seek access to camera footage during 2019.” This office encourages Mr. Bonham and the Department to continue to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Any fee estimate by the Department must be in compliance with the Public Records Law and its Access Regulations In light of both parties willingness to engage in communication to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably, I find it unnecessary to opine on the Department’s November 27th fee estimate at this time. Mr. Bonham may wish to narrow the scope of his request and resubmit his request to the Department. If outstanding issues remain, Mr. Bonham may further appeal within 90 days of receipt of the response. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Rebecca S. Murray Supervisor of Records cc: Tim Bonham