MA Public Records Search
← Back to Search

Ella Costa v. Walpole, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20222139)

Massachusetts Public Records Appeal · Public records appeal decision · Filed 09-19-2022

ClosedFee PetitionDecision

SPR 20222139 is a Massachusetts Public Records Law appeal filed by Ella Costa concerning records held by Walpole, Town of - Police Department, opened 09-19-2022. Type: Fee Petition. Status: Closed. Supervisor of Public Records determination: Public records appeal decision.

Case Details

Case Number
20222139
Case Type
Fee Petition
Case Subtype
Initial
Status
Closed
Requester
Ella Costa
Custodian
Walpole, Town of - Police Department
Date Opened
09-19-2022
Date Closed
09-23-2022

PDF Document

Extracted Text (searchable & copyable)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records September 23, 2022 SPR22/2139 Deanna Fruci Walpole Police Department Records Department 50 South Street Walpole, MA 02081 Dear Ms. Fruci: I have received your petition on behalf of the Walpole Police Department (Department) seeking permission to charge for time spent segregating or redacting responsive records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As required by law, the Department furnished a copy of this petition to the requestor. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c). On September 12, 2022, Ella Costa, of Chiro Center of Norwood, requested “all motor vehicle accident reports filed in [the Department’s] jurisdiction” for a specified time period. Petition to Assess Fees – Municipalities The Supervisor of Records (Supervisor) may approve a petition from a municipality 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 municipality to comply with the request. G. L. c. 66, § 10(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, § 10(d)(iv). The statute sets out a two-prong test for determining whether the Supervisor may approve a municipality’s petition to allow the municipality to charge for time spent segregating or redacting records. The first prong is whether the request for records was made for a commercial purpose. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). As discussed below, it is my determination that this request was made 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

Deanna Fruci SPR22/2139 Page 2 September 23, 2022 The second prong of the test is whether the fee represents an actual and good faith representation by the 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 $25 per hour; 2) the amount of the fee is reasonable; and 3) the fee is not designed to limit, deter or prevent access to requested public records. Id. Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.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 (two) 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, § 10(d)(iv). 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, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). Current Petition In its September 19, 2022 petition, the Department asks that it “be allowed to assess a fee for the time needed of [the] records clerk to search, redact and reproduce the records requested.” The Department provides the following information: Chiro Center of Norwood will be requesting from the record department accident reports on a regular basis. Based on [the Department’s] experience with other records requests of this type, this appeared to be for commercial purpose to either seek out new clients or establish a list of potential clients for the Chiropractor. This request was previously submitted but then retracted. They have now stated they would like to receive these motor vehicle crash reports and willing to pay a fee for these reports. The term “commercial purpose,” as used in the Public Records Law, shall mean: the sale or resale of any portion of the public record or the use of information

Deanna Fruci SPR22/2139 Page 3 September 23, 2022 from the public record to advance the requester’s strategic business interests in a manner that the requester can reasonably expect to make a profit, and shall not include gathering or reporting news or gathering information to promote citizen oversight or further the understanding of the operation or activities of government or for academic, scientific, journalistic or public research or education. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(ix). In light of the Department’s September 19th petition and the correspondence provided, it is my understanding that the request made by Ms. Costa meets the statutory definition of “commercial purpose” within the Public Records Law. See G. L. c. 66, § l0(d)(ix); see also SPR20/2599 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 5, 2021). Conclusion Based on the Department’s petition and my finding that the request is for a commercial purpose, I approve the Department’s petition to charge for time spent segregating and redacting responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). Please note, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two 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. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Please note, Ms. Costa has the right to seek judicial review of this decision by commencing a civil action in the appropriate superior court. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(c), 10(d)(iv)(4), 10A(c). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ella Costa